These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of in vivo confocal microscopy of human cornea by white light scanning slit and laser scanning systems.
    Author: Szaflik JP.
    Journal: Cornea; 2007 May; 26(4):438-45. PubMed ID: 17457193.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To compare in vivo corneal imaging by scanning slit white light and laser confocal microscopy systems. METHODS: Twenty healthy individuals and 10 patients with corneal dystrophies including Fuchs, granular, Map-Dot-Fingerprint dystrophies, and amiodarone-induced keratopathy were examined with the ConfoScan 3 (Nidek Technologies) scanning slit white light confocal microscope equipped with x40 front lens (Zeiss) and the Rostock Cornea Module (RCM) for HRT II (Heidelberg Engineering) laser confocal microscopy system equipped with Olympus x60 front lens. The endothelial cell density counts were performed and results were compared. For additional validation of endothelial cells density results, separate counts were carried out using the specular microscope SP-1000 (Topcon). RESULTS: The healthy and pathologically changed corneal structures are imaged in a similar manner by both systems. The differences in quality of acquired images in contrast and brightness between the systems are debatable, although the laser system was more efficient for epithelium imaging and white light scanning slit was better for evaluation of endothelium. Some of the examinations completed with the laser system, which requires applanating its front lens to the cornea, imaged dark striae in posterior stroma and Descemet membrane folds, resembling those observed in corneal pathologies, whereas most were probably induced by the pressure applied to the cornea during examination. All the results of cell density (for patients and for subjects with no ophthalmic disease) counts performed with the RCM (laser system) were higher than those with the ConfoScan 3 (scanning slit system) by 36.7% +/- 11.9% (SD) and 30.2% +/- 11.3% higher than SP-1000 (specular). The difference in cell counts between the RCM and other methods was increasing at higher cell densities. CONCLUSIONS: The morphologic findings in examinations performed with the laser confocal microscopy system are generally comparable to white light scanning slit confocal microscopy. Direct applanation of the front lens of the laser system to the cornea may generate certain changes in confocal microscopy outcomes, including imaging of Descemet membrane folds and dark lines in stroma, which should be differentiated from pathologic alterations. Comparison of the endothelium cell density counts obtained with the 2 systems should be made cautiously because significant differences might occur--RCM configured with the Olympus x60 front lens was found to overestimate the results compared with both CS3 and SP-1000 microscopes, with the range of disparity increasing for higher cell densities.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]