Comparison of central corneal thickness and endothelial cell measurements by Scheimpflug camera system and two noncontact specular microscopes

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorKaraca, Irmak
dc.contributor.authorYilmaz, Suzan Guven
dc.contributor.authorPalamar, Melis
dc.contributor.authorAtes, Halil
dc.date.accessioned2019-10-27T10:03:55Z
dc.date.available2019-10-27T10:03:55Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.departmentEge Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractTo investigate the correlation of Scheimpflug camera system and two noncontact specular microscopes in terms of central corneal thickness (CCT) and corneal endothelial cell morphology measurements. One hundred eyes of 50 healthy subjects were examined by Pentacam Scheimpflug Analyzer, CEM-530 (Nidek Co, Ltd, Gamagori, Japan) and CellChek XL (Konan Medical, California, USA) via fully automated image analysis with no corrections made. Measurement differences and agreement between instruments were determined by intraclass correlation analysis. The mean age of the subjects was 36.74 +/- 8.59 (range 22-57). CCTs were well correlated among all devices, with having CEM-530 the thinnest and CellChek XL the thickest measurements (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.83; p < 0.001 and ICC = 0.78; p < 0.001, respectively). Mean endothelial cell density (ECD) given by CEM-530 was lower than CellChek XL (2613.17 +/- 228.62 and 2862.72 +/- 170.42 cells/mm(2), respectively; ICC = 0.43; p < 0.001). Mean value for coefficient of variation (CV) was 28.57 +/- 3.61 in CEM-530 and 30.30 +/- 3.53 in CellChek XL. Cell hexagonality (HEX) with CEM-530 was higher than with CellChek XL (68.70 +/- 4.16% and 45.19 +/- 6.58%, respectively). ECDs with CellChek XL and CEM-530 have good correlation, but the values obtained by CellChek XL are higher than CEM-530. Measurements for HEX and CV differ significantly and show weak correlation. Thus, we do not recommend interchangeable use of CellChek XL and CEM-530. In terms of CCTs, Pentacam, CEM-530 and CellChek XL specular microscopy instruments are reliable devices.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s10792-017-0630-3en_US
dc.identifier.endpage1609en_US
dc.identifier.issn0165-5701
dc.identifier.issn1573-2630
dc.identifier.issue4en_US
dc.identifier.pmid28674859en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2en_US
dc.identifier.startpage1601en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-017-0630-3
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11454/30178
dc.identifier.volume38en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000439166500029en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ3en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherSpringeren_US
dc.relation.ispartofInternational Ophthalmologyen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectCentral corneal thicknessen_US
dc.subjectEndothelial cell parametersen_US
dc.subjectSpecular microscopeen_US
dc.subjectPentacamen_US
dc.titleComparison of central corneal thickness and endothelial cell measurements by Scheimpflug camera system and two noncontact specular microscopesen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu