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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Martin R, de Juan V, Rodriguez G et al (2008) Contact lens-induced corneal peripheral swelling differences with extended wears. Cornea 27:976–979
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 20:714–720
Herndon LW, Weizer JS, Stinnett SS (2004) Central corneal thickness as a risk factor for advanced glaucoma damage. Arch Ophthalmol 122:17–21
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 134:771–773
Nucci P, Brancato R, Mets MB et al (1990) Normal endothelial cell density range in childhood. Arch Ophthalmol 108:247–248
Bourne W, Nelson L, Hodge D (1997) Central corneal endothelial cell changes over a ten-year period. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 38:779–782
Matsuda M, Yee R, Edelhauser H (1985) Comparison of the corneal endothelium in an American and Japanese population. Arch Ophthalmol 103:68–70
Rao S, Fogla R, Gangadharan S et al (2000) Corneal endothelial cell density and morphology in normal Indian eyes. Cornea 19:820–823
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
Ho JW, Afshari NA (2015) Advances in cataract surgery: preserving the corneal endothelium. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 26:22–27
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 30:754–759
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
Mencucci R, Ponchietti C, Virgili G et al (2006) Corneal endothelial damage after cataract surgery: microincision versus standard technique. J Cataract Refract Surg 32:1351–1354
Plainer S, Wenzl E, Saalabian AA et al (2011) Long-term follow-up with I-CARE phakic IOLs. Br J Ophthalmol 95:710–714
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 33:576–581
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 25:501–506
Szalai E, Nemeth G, Berta A et al (2011) Evaluation of the corneal endothelium using noncontact and contact specular microscopy. Cornea 30:567–570
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 23:181–187
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 5:871–876
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 37:66–70
Tai LY, Khaw KW, Ng CM et al (2013) Central corneal thickness measurements with different imaging devices and ultrasound pachymetry. Cornea 32:766–771
Acknowledgments
The authors have no financial interest in any of the products mentioned in the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
None of the authors has any conflicts of interest in this study.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cakici, O., Karadag, R., Bayramlar, H. et al. Measurements of central corneal thickness and endothelial parameters with three different non-contact specular microscopy devices. Int Ophthalmol 37, 229–233 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-016-0264-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-016-0264-x