Advertisement

Cell and Tissue Banking

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 451–459 | Cite as

Inherent errors of the fixed-frame counting method for corneal endothelial cell density in eye banks

  • Nelly Campolmi
  • Sophie Acquart
  • Zhiguo He
  • Yann Gavet
  • Remy Jullienne
  • Nicolas Naigeon
  • Aurelien Bernard
  • Fabien Forest
  • Michel Péoc’h
  • Gilles Thuret
  • Philippe Gain
Original Paper

Abstract

The aim of this work was to analyze the magnitude of inherent errors associated with the fixed-frame counting method for corneal endothelial cell density (ECD) measurements. This technique is common among most eye banks worldwide. Three types of mosaics were used: regular and irregular tessellated mosaics (eight increasing densities ranging from 800 to 3,600 cells/mm2 by steps of 400 cells/mm2) generated by a computer, and real mosaics (four specimens) obtained from human corneal endothelium flat mounted and stained with Alizarin red. On the three mosaics, the fixed-frame counting method was applied using a computer program. The ECD was calculated for 3,000 successive random positions from calibrated grids which area ranged from 50 × 50 to 300 × 300 μm2 (incremental steps of 25 μm). For each grid, the ECD was expressed either as a single count, a mean of five or a mean of 10 measures. The fixed-frame count was constantly associated with an inherent variability but repeatability increased with larger grid size and ECD. The mean calculated out of 10 measures was the most reliable, but still, we noted ±5 % of residual variability from the real ECD. The 100 × 100 μm2 grid manual counts, performed in many eye banks, should be abandoned and upgraded to at least 200 × 200 μm2 grid counts. Digital image analysis with a variable frame counting method would be the best alternative.

Keywords

Corneal endothelium Cell count Eye bank Fixed-frame Quality control Reliability assessment 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Mr Florent Malassagne (formerly at Samba Technologies, Meylan, France) for help with computer programming. This work was partly founded by the French Agence Nationale pour la Recherche, TecSan 2012, CORRIMO 3D, and by the french Health Ministry (PHRC IR, n1108035) and was promoted by the University Hospital of Saint Etienne. The sponsor or funding organization had no role in the design or conduct of this research.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

References

  1. Acquart S, Gain P, Zhao M, Gavet Y, Defreyn A, Piselli S, Garraud O, Thuret G (2010) Endothelial morphometry by image analysis of corneas organ cultured at 31 °C. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 51(3):1356–1364. doi: 10.1167/iovs.08-3103 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amann J, Holley GP, Lee SB, Edelhauser HF (2003) Increased endothelial cell density in the paracentral and peripheral regions of the human cornea. Am J Ophthalmol 135(5):584–590PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benetz BA, Lass JH, Gal RL, Sugar A, Menegay H, Dontchev M, Kollman C, Beck RW, Mannis MJ, Holland EJ, Gorovoy M, Hannush SB, Bokosky JE, Caudill JW (2013) Endothelial morphometric measures to predict endothelial graft failure after penetrating keratoplasty. JAMA Ophthalmol 131(5):601–608. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2013.1693 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Binder PS, Akers P, Zavala EY (1979) Endothelial cell density determined by specular microscopy and scanning electron microscopy. Ophthalmology 86(10):1831–1847PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. De Boroviczeny CG (1966) On the standardization of the blood cell counts. Bibl Haematol 24:2–31PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Deb-Joardar N, Thuret G, Gavet Y, Acquart S, Garraud O, Egelhoffer H, Gain P (2007) Reproducibility of endothelial assessment during corneal organ culture: comparison of a computer-assisted analyzer with manual methods. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 48(5):2062–2067. doi: 10.1167/iovs.06-1043 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. EEBA (2012) European Eye Bank Association Directory. Twentieth edition. AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  8. Flury M, He Z, Campolmi N, Gain P, Kress B, Thuret G (2012) Fabrication of optical mosaics mimicking human corneal endothelium for the training and assessment of eye bank technicians. Opt Lett 37(1):22–24. doi: 10.1364/OL.37.000022 Google Scholar
  9. Gundersen HG (1977) Notes on estimation of the numerical density of arbitrary profiles: the edge effect. J Microsc 111(2):219–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gundersen HJ (1978) Estimators of the number of objects per area unbiased by edge effects. Microsc Acta 81(2):107–117PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Jonuscheit S, Doughty MJ, Ramaesh K (2012) Assessment of a variable frame (polygonal) method to estimate corneal endothelial cell counts after corneal transplantation. Eye (Lond) 26(6):803–809. doi: 10.1038/eye.2012.42 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Pels L (1997) Organ culture: the method of choice for preservation of human donor corneas. Br J Ophthalmol 81(7):523–525PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rao GN, Aquavella JV, Goldberg SH, Berk SL (1984) Pseudophakic bullous keratopathy. Relationship to preoperative corneal endothelial status. Ophthalmology 91(10):1135–1140PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Shaw EL, Rao GN, Arthur EJ, Aquavella JV (1978) The functional reserve of corneal endothelium. Ophthalmology 85(6):640–649PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Tan DT, Dart JK, Holland EJ, Kinoshita S (2012) Corneal transplantation. Lancet 379(9827):1749–1761. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60437-1 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Thuret G, Manissolle C, Acquart S, Le Petit JC, Maugery J, Campos-Guyotat L, Doughty MJ, Gain P (2003) Is manual counting of corneal endothelial cell density in eye banks still acceptable?The French experience. Br J Ophthalmol 87(12):1481–1486PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Thuret G, Manissolle C, Acquart S, Garraud O, Campos-Guyotat L, Maugery J, Gain P (2004) Urgent need for normalization of corneal graft quality controls in French eye banks. Transplantation 78(9):1299–1302.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nelly Campolmi
    • 1
  • Sophie Acquart
    • 1
    • 2
  • Zhiguo He
    • 1
  • Yann Gavet
    • 3
  • Remy Jullienne
    • 1
  • Nicolas Naigeon
    • 1
  • Aurelien Bernard
    • 1
  • Fabien Forest
    • 1
  • Michel Péoc’h
    • 1
  • Gilles Thuret
    • 1
    • 4
  • Philippe Gain
    • 2
  1. 1.Corneal Graft Biology, Engineering and Imaging Laboratory, EA 2521, SFR143, Faculty of MedicineJean Monnet UniversitySaint-Étienne Cedex 2France
  2. 2.French Blood Center/Eye Bank of Saint EtienneSaint-ÉtienneFrance
  3. 3.Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Saint-EtienneSaint-ÉtienneFrance
  4. 4.Institut Universitaire de FranceParisFrance

Personalised recommendations