Advertisement

International Ophthalmology

, Volume 39, Issue 2, pp 287–294 | Cite as

Comparison of corneal endothelial cell analysis in patients with uveitis and healthy subjects

  • Hande GucluEmail author
  • Vuslat Gurlu
Original Paper
  • 86 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of uveitis in corneal endothelial cell number and morphology by non-contact specular microscopy.

Methods

Our cross-sectional study was performed on 56 eyes of uveitis patients and 53 eyes of healthy subjects. Non-contact specular microscopy was performed to all subjects. The cell density (CD), coefficient of variation, cell minimum area (Min) and cell maximum area (Max), the average of cell size (AVG), percent of hexagonality (HEX%), central corneal thickness (CCT), intraocular pressure (IOP) during uveitis and during remission were measured and compared between two groups.

Results

The mean endothelial cell analysis of the patients was 2540 ± 619 cells/mm2, and the mean endothelial cell analysis of the control group was 2834 ± 413 cells/mm2. The difference was statistically significant between the groups (p = 0.01). There was a statistically significant difference between two groups in terms of Max, Min, AVG, and HEX values. However, there was no difference in terms of CCT between two groups. There was a significant negative correlation between CD and IOP during uveitis attack. There was a significant negative correlation between the anterior chamber cell value and CD.

Conclusion

Our results suggested that uveitis affected endothelial cell density, cell size and shape but not the corneal thickness without being influenced by the duration and number of attacks. Increased IOP during uveitis and anterior chamber cell value had an important role on CD in patients with uveitis.

Keywords

Specular microscopy Endothelial cell density Coefficient of variation The average of cell size Percent of hexagonality 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors certify that they have no conflict of interest. Author Hande GUCLU has no conflict of interest; Author Vuslat GURLU has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee (Trakya University Faculty of Medicine Ethics Committee) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Cheung SW, Cho P (2000) Endothelial cells analysis with the TOPCON specular microscope SP-2000P and IMAGEnet system. Curr Eye Res 21(4):788–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Quiroga L, Lansingh VC, Samudio M, Peña FY, Carter MJ (2010) Characteristics of the corneal endothelium and pseudoexfoliation syndrome in patients with senile cataract. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 38(5):449–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wirbelauer C, Anders N, Pham DT, Wollensak J (1998) Corneal endothelial cell changes in pseudoexfoliationsyndrome after cataract surgery. Arch Ophthalmol 116:145–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Garza-Leon M (2016) Corneal endothelial cell analysis using two non-contact specular microscopes in healthy subjects. Int Ophthalmol 36(4):453–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cinar E, Zengin MO, Kucukerdonmez C (2015) Evaluation of corneal endothelial cell damage after vitreoretinal surgery: comparison of different endotamponades. Eye 29(5):670–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alfawaz AM, Holland GN, Yu F, Margolis MS, Giaconi JA, Aldave AJ (2016) Corneal endothelium in patients with anterior uveitis. Ophthalmology 123(8):1637–1645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Trinh L, Brignole-Baudouin F, Labbe A et al (2008) The corneal endothelium in an endotoxin-induced uveitis model: correlation between in vivo confocal microscopy and immunohistochemistry. Mol Vis 14:1149–1156Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ding X, Huang Q, Zheng Y, Jiang Y, Huang S, He M (2012) Measurement area and repeatability of semiautomated assessment of corneal endothelium in the Topcon specular microscope SP-2000P and IMAGEnet system. Cornea 31(10):1111–1118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    van Schaick W, van Dooren BT, Mulder PG, Völker-Dieben HJ (2005) Validity of endothelial cell analysis methods and recommendations for calibration in Topcon SP-2000P specular microscopy. Cornea 24(5):538–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    de Sanctis U, Machetta F, Razzano L, Dalmasso P, Grignolo FM (2006) Corneal endothelium evaluation with 2 noncontact specular microscopes and their semiautomated methods of analysis. Cornea 25(5):501–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pato E, Martin-Martinez MA, Castelló A et al (2017) Development of an activity disease score in patients with uveitis (UVEDAI). Rheumatol Int 37:647–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jabs DA, Nussenblatt RB, Rosenbaum JT, Standardization of Uveitis Nomenclature (SUN) Working Group (2005) Standardization of uveitis nomenclature for reporting clinical data. Results of the First International Workshop. Am J Ophthalmol 140(3):509–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sayin N, Kara N, Pekel G, Altinkaynak H (2014) Effects of chronic smoking on central corneal thickness, endothelial cell, and dry eye parameters. Cutan Ocul Toxicol 33(3):201–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Örnek N, Özcan Dağ Z, Örnek K (2017) Corneal endothelial cell density and morphology in different trimesters of pregnancy. Eye Contact Lens.  https://doi.org/10.1097/icl.0000000000000354 Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Costagliola C, Romano V, Forbice E et al (2013) Corneal oedema and its medical treatment. Clin Exp Optom 96:529–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Oliveira F, Oliveira Motta AC, Muccioli C (2009) Corneal specular microscopy in infectious and noninfectious uveitis. Arq Bras Oftalmol 72:457–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stevenson R, Kirkness CM (1994) A comparison of contact and non-contact specular microscopy in quantifying corneal morphology. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 35:1598Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pillai CT, Dua HS, Azuara-Blanco A, Sarhan AR (2000) Evaluation of corneal endothelium and keratic precipitates by specular microscopy in anterior uveitis. Br J Ophthalmol 84(12):1367–1371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Olsen T (1980) Changes in the corneal endothelium after acute anterior uveitis as seen with the specular microscope. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 58:250–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Basarir B, Celik U, Altan C, Celik NB (2017) Choroidal thickness changes determined by EDI-OCT on acute anterior uveitis in patients with HLA-B27-positive ankylosing spondylitis. Int Ophthalmol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-017-0464-z Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee JS, Oum BS, Choi HY, Lee JE, Cho BM (2006) Differences in corneal thickness and corneal endothelium related to duration in diabetes. Eye 20(3):315–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Polat N, Cumurcu B, Cumurcu T, Tuncer İ (2017) Corneal endothelial changes in long-term cannabinoid users. Cutan Ocul Toxicol 10:1–5.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15569527.2017.1322098 Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ilhan N, Ilhan O, Coskun M, Daglioglu MC, Ayhan Tuzcu E, Kahraman H, Keskin U (2016) Effects of smoking on central corneal thickness and the corneal endothelial cell layer in otherwise healthy subjects. Eye Contact Lens. 42(5):303–307.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ICL.0000000000000212 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mac Rae SM, Matsuda M, Shellans S et al (1986) The effects of hard and soft contact lenses on the corneal endothelium. Am J Ophthalmol 102:50–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bourne WM, McLaren JW (2004) Clinical responses of the corneal endothelium. Exp Eye Res 78:561–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Holden BA, Sweeney DF, Vannas A et al (1985) Effects of long-term extended contact lens wear on the human cornea. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 26:1489–1501Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Setälä K, Vasara K, Vesti E, Ruusuvaara P (1998) Effects of long-term contact lens wear on the corneal endothelium. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 76:299–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Keoleian GM, Pach JM, Hodge DO et al (1992) Structural and functional studies of the corneal endothelium in diabetes mellitus. Am J Ophthalmol 113:64–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Larsson LI, Bourne WM, Pach JM et al (1996) Structure and function of the corneal endothelium in diabetes mellitus type I and type II. Arch Ophthalmol 114:9–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schultz RO, Matsuda M, Yee RW et al (1983) Corneal endothelial changes in type I and type II diabetes mellitus. Am J Ophthalmol 98:401–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ozdamar Y, Berker N, Ertugrul G, Gurlevik U, Karakaya J, Ozkan SS (2010) Is there a change of corneal thickness in uveitis with Behcet disease? Cornea 29(11):1265–1267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Heinz C, Taneri S, Roesel M, Heiligenhaus A (2012) Influence of corneal thickness changes during active uveitis on Goldmann applanation and dynamic contour tonometry. Ophthalmic Res 48(1):38–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tugal-Tutkun I, Cingu K, Kir N et al (2008) Use of laser flare-cell photometry to quantify intraocular inflammation in patients with Behcet uveitis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 246:1169–1177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ladas JG, Wheeler NC, Morhun PJ et al (2005) Laser flare-cellphotometry: methodology and clinical applications. Surv Ophthalmol 50:27–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jorge A, Queirós A, Peixoto-de-Matos SC, Ferrer-Blasco T, GonzálezMéijome JM (2010) Age-related changes of corneal endothelium in normal eyes with a non-contact specular microscope. J Emmetropia 1:132–139Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Arıcı C, Arslan OS, Funda Dikkaya F (2014) Corneal endothelial cell density and morphology in healthy Turkish eyes. J Ophthalmol 2014:852624Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rao SK, Ranjan Sen P, Fogla R, Gangadharan S, Padmanabhan P, Badrinath SS (2000) Corneal endothelial cell density and morphology in normal Indian eyes. Cornea 19:820–823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Demiroğlu H, Barişta I, Dündar S (1997) Risk factor assessment and prognosis of eye involvement in Behcet’s disease in Turkey. Ophthalmology 104(4):701–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    De Juan-Marcos L, Cabrillo-Estévez L, Escudero-Dominguez FA, Sánchez-Jara A, Hernández-Galilea E (2013) Morphometric changes of corneal endothelial cells in pseudoexfoliation syndrome and pseudoexfoliation glaucoma. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol 88:439–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bozkurt B, Güzel H, Kamis Ü, Gedik S, Okudan S (2015) Characteristics of the anterior segment biometry and corneal endothelium in eyes with pseudoexfoliation syndrome and senile cataract. Turk J Ophthalmol 45:188–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Örnek N, Örnek K (2017) Corneal endothelial changes following a single session of selective laser trabeculoplasty for pseudoexfoliative glaucoma. Int Ophthalmol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-017-0730-0 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of MedicineTrakya UniversityEdirneTurkey

Personalised recommendations