Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
International Ophthalmology
Published in: International Ophthalmology 1/2017

01-02-2017 | Original Paper

Measurements of central corneal thickness and endothelial parameters with three different non-contact specular microscopy devices

Authors: Ozgur Cakici, Remzi Karadag, Huseyin Bayramlar, Efe Koyun

Published in: International Ophthalmology | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

We aimed to compare the measurements of central corneal thickness (CCT) and endothelial parameters with three different non-contact specular microscopy (SM) devices. Fifteen eyes of 15 healthy individuals (6 males; 9 females) were enrolled in the study. Mean age was 37.93 ± 15.13 years. Endothelial parameters and CCT were measured with Nidek CEM-530, Topcon SP-3000P, and Tomey EM-3000 SM devices by the same physician. Endothelial parameters included endothelial cell count (ECC), maximum, minimum, and average endothelial cell size. and hexagonality ratio. There were no statistically significant differences in ECC, CTT, and average endothelial size (AES) between the devices (p > 0.05). The measurement of maximum endothelial size (MES) was different between Nidek SM and Topcon SM devices (p = 0.001), but there was no difference in MES between Nidek SM and Tomey SM (p = 0.058), and between Topcon SM and Tomey SM (p = 0.081). There was no difference in minimum endothelial size (MinES) between Nidek SM and Topcon SM (p = 0.794); however, there was a significant difference in MinES between Tomey SM and Nidek SM (p < 0.001), and between Tomey SM and Topcon SM (p < 0.001). Comparison of hexagonality ratio showed statistically significant difference between the devices (p < 0.001). No significant differences in the measurements of ECC, CCT, and AES were detected between different SM devices, whereas a statistically significant difference in hexagonality ratio was detected between the devices. These devices should not be used alternatively in the endothelial morphology assessment in patient’s follow-up.
Literature
1.
Martin R, de Juan V, Rodriguez G et al (2008) Contact lens-induced corneal peripheral swelling differences with extended wears. Cornea 27:976–979CrossRefPubMed
2.
Gordon MO, Beiser JA, Brandt JD et al (2002) The ocular hypertension treatment study: baseline factors that predict the onset of primary open-angle glaucoma. Arch Ophthalmol 20:714–720CrossRef
3.
Herndon LW, Weizer JS, Stinnett SS (2004) Central corneal thickness as a risk factor for advanced glaucoma damage. Arch Ophthalmol 122:17–21CrossRefPubMed
4.
Ou RJ, Shaw EL, Glasgow BJ (2002) Keratectasia after laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK): evaluation of the calculated residual stromal bed thickness. Am J Ophthalmol 134:771–773CrossRefPubMed
5.
Nucci P, Brancato R, Mets MB et al (1990) Normal endothelial cell density range in childhood. Arch Ophthalmol 108:247–248CrossRefPubMed
6.
Bourne W, Nelson L, Hodge D (1997) Central corneal endothelial cell changes over a ten-year period. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 38:779–782PubMed
7.
Matsuda M, Yee R, Edelhauser H (1985) Comparison of the corneal endothelium in an American and Japanese population. Arch Ophthalmol 103:68–70CrossRefPubMed
8.
Rao S, Fogla R, Gangadharan S et al (2000) Corneal endothelial cell density and morphology in normal Indian eyes. Cornea 19:820–823CrossRefPubMed
9.
Guell JL, El Husseiny MA, Manero F et al (2014) Historical review and update of surgical treatment for corneal endothelial diseases. Ophthalmol Ther 18:18
10.
Ho JW, Afshari NA (2015) Advances in cataract surgery: preserving the corneal endothelium. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 26:22–27CrossRefPubMed
11.
Salvetat ML, Zeppieri M, Miani F et al (2011) Comparison between laser scanning in vivo confocal microscopy and noncontact specular microscopy in assessing corneal endothelial cell density and central corneal thickness. Cornea 30:754–759CrossRefPubMed
12.
Laing RA, Oak SS, Leibowitz HM (1998) Specialized microscopy of the cornea. In: Leibowitz HM, Warring GO III (eds) Corneal disorders—clinical diagnosis and management. WB Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 83–122
13.
Mencucci R, Ponchietti C, Virgili G et al (2006) Corneal endothelial damage after cataract surgery: microincision versus standard technique. J Cataract Refract Surg 32:1351–1354CrossRefPubMed
14.
Plainer S, Wenzl E, Saalabian AA et al (2011) Long-term follow-up with I-CARE phakic IOLs. Br J Ophthalmol 95:710–714CrossRefPubMed
15.
Bao F, Wang Q, Cheng S et al (2014) Comparison and evaluation of central corneal thickness using 2 new noncontact specular microscopes and conventional pachymetry devices. Cornea 33:576–581CrossRefPubMed
16.
de Sanctis U, Machetta F, Razzano L et al (2006) Corneal endothelium evaluation with 2 noncontact specular microscopes and their semiautomated methods of analysis. Cornea 25:501–506CrossRefPubMed
17.
Szalai E, Nemeth G, Berta A et al (2011) Evaluation of the corneal endothelium using noncontact and contact specular microscopy. Cornea 30:567–570CrossRefPubMed
18.
Al-Ageel S, Al-Muammar AM (2009) Comparison of central corneal thickness measurements by Pentacam, noncontact specular microscope, and ultrasound pachymetry in normal and post-LASIK eyes. Saudi J Ophthalmol 23:181–187CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Almubrad TM, Osuagwu UL, Alabbadi I et al (2011) Comparison of the precision of the Topcon SP-3000P specular microscope and an ultrasound pachymeter. Clin Ophthalmol 5:871–876CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
González-Pérez J, González-Méijome JM, Rodríguez Ares MT et al (2011) Central corneal thickness measured with three optical devices and ultrasound pachymetry. Eye Contact Lens 37:66–70CrossRefPubMed
21.
Tai LY, Khaw KW, Ng CM et al (2013) Central corneal thickness measurements with different imaging devices and ultrasound pachymetry. Cornea 32:766–771CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Measurements of central corneal thickness and endothelial parameters with three different non-contact specular microscopy devices
Authors
Ozgur Cakici
Remzi Karadag
Huseyin Bayramlar
Efe Koyun
Publication date
01-02-2017
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
International Ophthalmology / Issue 1/2017
Print ISSN: 0165-5701
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2630
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-016-0264-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

International Ophthalmology 1/2017 Go to the issue

Original Paper

Choroidal thickness in psoriasis

Original Paper

Long-term outcome of amniotic membrane transplantation combined with mitomycin C for conjunctival reconstruction after ocular surface squamous neoplasia excision

Original Paper

An easy and practical method for toric intraocular lens implantation: marking corneal astigmatic axis at slit-lamp

Case Report

Corneal graft dellen in a patient implanted with a Boston keratoprosthesis type 1

Case Report

Diplopia as presenting sign of Turcot syndrome

Photo Essay

Keratoneuritis is not pathognomonic of Acanthamoeba keratitis: a case report of Pseudomonas keratitis