Vidal-Villegas B, Burgos-Blasco B, Fernandez-Vega P, Arriola-Villalobos P, Gegundez-Fernandez JA, Borrego-Sanz L, Benitez-Del-Castillo JS, Ariño-Gutierrez M. Corneal endothelial validation in the eye bank: differences in automated methods and repeatability.
J Fr Ophtalmol 2024;
47:104022. [PMID:
37951743 DOI:
10.1016/j.jfo.2023.09.017]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/16/2023] [Revised: 08/18/2023] [Accepted: 09/07/2023] [Indexed: 11/14/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE
To evaluate reproducibility of endothelial cell density (ECD) measurements using the Konan Cell Check D in donor corneas by two different ophthalmologists and to compare the two automated cell count methods (center and flex-center) available in the software of this specular microscope.
METHODS
ECD values were quantified in 54 donor corneas by two independent investigators using the Cell Check D (Konan Medical USA Inc) with both automated cell count methods. In the center method, at least 30 contiguous cells are marked. For the flex-center method, an area is delineated and only the cells within the designated area are counted.
RESULTS
The mean ECD was 2473.81±378.22 cells/mm2. Good ECD intergrader reproducibility for the center (ICC=0.821) and the flex-center method (ICC=0.784) were noted. Poor reliability was observed for coefficient of variation and hexagonality (ICC≤0.265). When both methods for ECD analysis were compared, a moderate correlation for the two independent graders using the two manual (center and flex-center) methods was detected (correlation coefficient of 0.678 and 0.745 for each of the investigators). Comparison between methods yielded significantly higher ECD with the flex-center method (P=0.013). When corneas were divided by ECD, those under 2200 cells/mm2 and those between 2200 and 2700 cells/mm2 also had significantly higher ECD with the flex-center method (P<0.022).
CONCLUSIONS
ECD values are reproducible with both methods, although the flex-center method ECDs tend to be higher, particularly in cases of low ECD. Eye banks and surgeons should exercise caution in making decisions based only on small differences in ECD.
Collapse