Agreement of Corneal Endothelial Cell Analysis Between Konan-Noncon Robo SP-6000 and Tomey EM-3000 Specular Microscopes in Healthy Subjects.
Journal
Eye & contact lens
ISSN: 1542-233X
Titre abrégé: Eye Contact Lens
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101160941
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Apr 2021
01 Apr 2021
Historique:
accepted:
22
03
2020
pubmed:
23
5
2020
medline:
19
8
2021
entrez:
23
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To compare corneal endothelium parameters taken by two common noncontact specular microscopes in healthy subjects. Healthy participants visiting the outpatient eye clinic at the Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, were recruited prospectively. All participants underwent three consecutive corneal endothelial cell photographs with both the Konan-Noncon Robo SP-6000 and the Tomey EM-3000 specular microscopes. Endothelial cell density (ECD) was evaluated using the manual center technique in both machines. Bland-Altman graphs were used to assess the agreement between the devices, and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) served to assess intraobserver variability for each device. Recruited were 49 healthy subjects with a mean age of 48.9±15.6 years, 49 right eyes were included. The mean ECD was comparable between the Tomey EM-3000 and the Konan-Noncon Robo SP-6000 (2,713.2±242.4 vs. 2,700.8±300.5 cells/mm2, respectively, P=0.47) with a mean difference of 12.4 cells/mm2 (0.67%), a mean ECD absolute difference of 93.3 cells/mm2, and low 95% limits of agreement of -222.0 to +246.9 cells/mm2. A folded empirical distribution function curve showed that all differences fell within 525.4 cells/mm2, centered around a median of 13.3 cells/mm2. Intraclass correlation coefficient was high for both the Konan-Noncon Robo SP-6000 (0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89-0.95) and the Tomey EM-3000 (0.88, 95% CI: 0.82-0.93). The difference in endothelial cell measurements between the Konan SP-6000 and the Tomey EM-3000 specular microscopes through the center and the L-count analyzing techniques, respectively, is clinically small and not statistically significant. Nevertheless, caution should be taken when used interchangeably because ECD difference between the two machines can be as high as 525.4 cells/mm2.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32443012
pii: 00140068-202104000-00007
doi: 10.1097/ICL.0000000000000712
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
191-195Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Contact Lens Association of Ophthalmologists.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have no funding or conflicts of interest to disclose.
Références
Doughty MJ. Could the coefficient of variation (COV) of the corneal endothelium be overestimated when a centre-dot method is used? Clin Exp Optom 2008;91:103–110.
Williams KK, Noe RL, Grossniklaus HE, et al. Correlation of histologic corneal endothelial cell counts with specular microscopic cell density. Arch Ophthalmol 1992;110:1146–1149.
Ohno K, Nelson LR, McLaren JW, et al. Comparison of recording systems and analysis methods in specular microscopy. Cornea 1999;18:416–423.
Benetz BA, Lass JH. Specular microscopy. Cornea 2018;37:S7–S8.
Corneal endothelial photography. Three-year revision. American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology 1997;104:1360–1365.
Goldich Y, Marcovich AL, Barkana Y, et al. Comparison of corneal endothelial cell density estimated with 2 noncontact specular microscopes. Eur J Ophthalmol 2010;20:825–830.
de Sanctis U, Mutani B, Grignolo FM. Long-term endothelial cell loss after traumatic dislocation and repositioning of Artisan phakic IOL. J Refract Surg 2008;24:546–548.
Luft N, Hirnschall N, Schuschitz S, et al. Comparison of 4 specular microscopes in healthy eyes and eyes with cornea guttata or corneal grafts. Cornea 2015;34:381–386.
McCarey BE, Edelhauser HF, Lynn MJ. Review of corneal endothelial specular microscopy for FDA clinical trials of refractive procedures, surgical devices, and new intraocular drugs and solutions. Cornea 2008;27:1–16.
Price MO, Fairchild KM, Price FW Jr. Comparison of manual and automated endothelial cell density analysis in normal eyes and DSEK eyes. Cornea 2013;32:567–573.
Olsen T. Non-contact specular microscopy of human corneal endothelium. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1979;57:986–998.
Bland JM, Altman DG. Agreed statistics: Measurement method comparison. Anesthesiology 2012;116:182–185.
Kitzmann AS, Winter EJ, Nau CB, et al. Comparison of corneal endothelial cell images from a noncontact specular microscope and a scanning confocal microscope. Cornea 2005;24:980–984.
Monti KL. Folded empirical distribution function curves—mountain plots. Am Statistician 1995;49:342–345.
Hong E, Ryu S, Kang M, et al. Comparison of repeatability of swept-source and spectral-domain optical coherence tomography for measuring inner retinal thickness in retinal disease. PLoS One 2019;16:e0210729.
Huang J, Maram J, Tepelus TC, et al. Comparison of manual & automated analysis methods for corneal endothelial cell density measurements by specular microscopy. J Optom 2018;11:182–191.
Lass JH, Gal RL, Ruedy KJ, et al. An evaluation of image quality and accuracy of eye bank measurement of donor cornea endothelial cell density in the Specular Microscopy Ancillary Study. Ophthalmology 2005;112:431–440.
Huang J, Liu X, Tepelus TC, et al. Comparison of the center and flex-center methods of corneal endothelial cell analysis in the presence of guttae. Cornea 2017;36:1514–1520.
Salvetat ML, Zeppieri M, Miani F, et al. Comparison between laser scanning in vivo confocal microscopy and noncontact specular microscopy in assessing corneal endothelial cell density and central corneal thickness. Cornea 2011;30:754–759.