In vivo confocal microscopy of the corneal endothelium: comparison of three morphometry methods after corneal transplantation

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to assess the endothelium of corneal grafts by in vivoconfocal microscopy (IVCM), and to evaluate an automated endothelial software system in comparison with a manual cell count and planimetry.Patients and methodsOverall, 40 corneal grafts (20 deep anterior lamellar keratoplasties (DALKs) and 20 penetrating keratoplasties (PKs)) were assessed by scanning-slit IVCM. The endothelial cell density (ECD) was estimated with the automated and the manual cell count method of the instrument's Nidek Advanced Vision Information System (NAVIS) software. The results were compared with planimetry as the reference method, and the agreement was assessed.ResultsThe mean (±SD) automated ECD was 2278±524 cells/mm2 (range 1167–3192 cells/mm2), whereas the manual cell count method gave significantly lower ECDs with a mean of 1213±677 cells/mm2 (range 218–2440 cells/mm2; P<0.001). The manual cell counts were also significantly lower than those by planimetry, with a mean ECD of 1617±813 cells/mm2 (range 336–2941, P<0.001). Bland–Altman analyses indicated that the limits of agreement (LoA) between the automated and the planimetry method were −671 and +1992 cells/mm2, whereas they were −1000 and +202 cells/mm2 when comparing the manual cell counts with planimetry.ConclusionFollowing keratoplasty, the NAVIS automated method is likely to overestimate endothelial cell counts due to oversegmenting of the cell domains. Automated ECDs are substantially higher than those by the manual counting method or planimetry. The differences are considerably larger post-keratoplasty than for normal corneas, and the methods should not be used interchangeably.

[1]  M. Filipec,et al.  Long-Term Follow-Up of Penetrating Keratoplasty for Keratoconus , 1997 .

[2]  D. Patel,et al.  Clinical and microstructural analysis of patients with hyper-reflective corneal endothelial nuclei imaged by in vivo confocal microscopy. , 2006, Experimental eye research.

[3]  Thomas Kohnen,et al.  Comparison of Endothelial Cell Count Using Confocal and Contact Specular Microscopy , 2003, Ophthalmologica.

[4]  M. Doughty,et al.  Further analysis of assessments of the coefficient of variation of corneal endothelial cell areas from specular microscopic images , 2008, Clinical & experimental optometry.

[5]  D Hodge,et al.  Normal human keratocyte density and corneal thickness measurement by using confocal microscopy in vivo. , 2001, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[6]  M. Bullimore,et al.  An Evaluation of the Confoscan3 for Corneal Endothelial Morphology Analysis , 2007, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[7]  Sanjay V. Patel,et al.  Comparison of Flex-Center, Center, and Corner Methods of Corneal Endothelial Cell Analysis , 2010, Cornea.

[8]  C. McGhee,et al.  Identifying relationships between tomography-derived corneal thickness, curvature, and diameter and in vivo confocal microscopic assessment of the endothelium in healthy corneas of young adults , 2009, Eye.

[9]  Alan Sugar,et al.  Endothelial cell density to predict endothelial graft failure after penetrating keratoplasty. , 2010, Archives of ophthalmology.

[10]  J. V. van Best,et al.  Corneal Cell Density Measurement in vivo by Scanning Slit Confocal Microscopy: Method and Validation , 2004, Ophthalmic Research.

[11]  M. Doughty.  Concerning the symmetry of the 'hexagonal' cells of the corneal endothelium. , 1992, Experimental eye research.

[12]  Christoph Hirneiss,et al.  Endothelial Cell Density in Donor Corneas: A Comparison of Automatic Software Programs With Manual Counting , 2007, Cornea.

[13]  Kenji Inoue,et al.  Corneal endothelial cell changes twenty years after penetrating keratoplasty. , 2002, Japanese journal of ophthalmology.

[14]  C. McGhee,et al.  Corneal innervation and cellular changes after corneal transplantation: an in vivo confocal microscopy study. , 2007, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[15]  H. Edelhauser.  The Resiliency of the Corneal Endothelium to Refractive and Intraocular Surgery , 2000, Cornea.

[16]  M J Doughty,et al.  Assessment of the Reliability of Human Corneal Endothelial Cell-Density Estimates Using a Noncontact Specular Microscope , 2000, Cornea.

[17]  M. Doughty.  Could the coefficient of variation (COV) of the corneal endothelium be overestimated when a centre‐dot method is used? , 2008, Clinical & experimental optometry.

[18]  R. Wubbels,et al.  Endothelial involvement in herpes simplex virus keratitis: an in vivo confocal microscopy study. , 2008, Ophthalmology.

[19]  L. Imre,et al.  Reliability and reproducibility of corneal endothelial image analysis by in vivo confocal microscopy , 2001, Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology.

[20]  N. Ehlers,et al.  Longterm follow‐up of penetrating keratoplasty for keratoconus , 2009, Acta ophthalmologica.

[21]  Michael J Lynn,et al.  Review of corneal endothelial specular microscopy for FDA clinical trials of refractive procedures, surgical devices, and new intraocular drugs and solutions. , 2008, Cornea.

[22]  W. M. Bourne.  Cellular Changes in Transplanted Human Corneas , 2001, Cornea.

[23]  R. D. Stulting,et al.  Donor age and corneal endothelial cell loss 5 years after successful corneal transplantation. Specular microscopy ancillary study results. , 2008, Ophthalmology.

[24]  Sanjay V. Patel,et al.  Corneal endothelium and postoperative outcomes 15 years after penetrating keratoplasty. , 2005, Transactions of the American Ophthalmological Society.

[25]  Roni M. Shtein,et al.  Deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty as an alternative to penetrating keratoplasty a report by the american academy of ophthalmology. , 2011, Ophthalmology.

[26]  M. Doughty,et al.  A semi-automated assessment of cell size and shape in monolayers, with optional adjustment for the cell-cell border width-application to human corneal endothelium. , 2002, Tissue & cell.

[27]  P. Gain,et al.  Agreement between two non-contact specular microscopes: Topcon SP2000P versus Rhine-Tec , 2007, British Journal of Ophthalmology.

[28]  Teruo Nishida,et al.  Comparison of Confocal Biomicroscopy and Noncontact Specular Microscopy for Evaluation of the Corneal Endothelium , 2003, Cornea.

[29]  D. Altman,et al.  Measuring agreement in method comparison studies , 1999, Statistical methods in medical research.

[30]  J. McLaren,et al.  Comparison of Corneal Endothelial Cell Images From a Noncontact Specular Microscope and a Scanning Confocal Microscope , 2005, Cornea.

[31]  K. S. Cornish,et al.  Deep Anterior Lamellar Keratoplasty on a Previously Failed Full-Thickness Graft , 2009, Cornea.

[32]  S. Kaye,et al.  Penetrating and deep anterior lamellar keratoplasty for keratoconus: a comparison of graft outcomes in the United kingdom. , 2009, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[33]  O. Findl,et al.  Reliability of a Video-Based Noncontact Specular Microscope for Assessing the Corneal Endothelium , 2007, Cornea.

[34]  S. Hannush,et al.  Descemetic DALK and Predescemetic DALK: Outcomes in 236 Cases of Keratoconus , 2010, Cornea.

[35]  M. Kim,et al.  A Comparison of Endothelial Cell Loss After Phacoemulsification in Penetrating Keratoplasty Patients and Normal Patients , 2010, Cornea.

[36]  P. Böelle,et al.  Predicted long-term outcome of corneal transplantation. , 2009, Ophthalmology.

[37]  C. McGhee,et al.  Quantitative analysis of corneal microstructure in keratoconus utilising in vivo confocal microscopy , 2007, Eye.

[38]  M. Doughty,et al.  A comparison of two methods for estimating polymegethism in cell areas of the human corneal endothelium , 2008 .