Is manual counting of corneal endothelial cell density in eye banks still acceptable? the French experience

G. Thuret, C. Manissolle, S. Acquart, J-C. Le Petit, J. Maugery, L. Campos-Guyotat, Michael Doughty, P. Gain

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to examine the differences in manual endothelial cell counting methods in French eye banks and to analyse whether these differences could explain some substantial discrepancies observed in endothelial cell density (ECD) for corneas made available for transplant. A questionnaire was sent to the 22 eye banks asking for details of the technical features of the light microscopes used, the microscope calibration, strategy for cell counting, the technical staff, and the method of presenting endothelial data. All eye banks responded and 91% (20/22) used only manual counting methods, in real time, directly through a microscope, and 62 different technicians, with varying experience, were involved in such counting. Counting of cells within the borders of a grid that were in contact with two adjacent borders was the most common method (17/22, 77%). Of the eight banks (8/22, 36%) that did not calibrate their microscopes, six reported the highest ECD values. Of the 14 others (64%), six applied a “magnification correcting factor” to the initial cell counts. In five of these cases, the corrected ECD was lower than estimated on initial count. Most of the banks (12/22, 55%) counted 100 cells or less in one to six non-adjacent zones of the mosaic. 14 of the banks (14/22, 64%) also graded cell polymegethism while seven (7/22, 32%) also graded pleomorphism (“hexagonality”). Lack of microscope calibration appears to be the leading cause of variance in ECD estimates in French eye banks. Other factors such as differences in counting strategy, the evaluation of smaller numbers of cells, and the different extent of experience of the technicians may also contribute to intraobserver and interobserver variability. Further comparative studies, including cross checking and the outcome of repeated counts from manual methods, are clearly needed with cross calibration to a computer based image archiving and analysis system.

Original languageEnglish
JournalBritish Journal of Ophthalmology
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Dec 2003

Fingerprint

Eye Banks
Endothelial Cells
Cell Count
Calibration
Observer Variation
Cornea
Transplants
Light

Keywords

  • endothelial cell density
  • corneal endothelial cells
  • corneal transplant

Cite this

Thuret, G. ; Manissolle, C. ; Acquart, S. ; Le Petit, J-C. ; Maugery, J. ; Campos-Guyotat, L. ; Doughty, Michael ; Gain, P. / Is manual counting of corneal endothelial cell density in eye banks still acceptable? the French experience. In: British Journal of Ophthalmology. 2003.
@article{a44065d85984469cb9eaca1fd581ca55,
title = "Is manual counting of corneal endothelial cell density in eye banks still acceptable? the French experience",
abstract = "The aim of this paper is to examine the differences in manual endothelial cell counting methods in French eye banks and to analyse whether these differences could explain some substantial discrepancies observed in endothelial cell density (ECD) for corneas made available for transplant. A questionnaire was sent to the 22 eye banks asking for details of the technical features of the light microscopes used, the microscope calibration, strategy for cell counting, the technical staff, and the method of presenting endothelial data. All eye banks responded and 91{\%} (20/22) used only manual counting methods, in real time, directly through a microscope, and 62 different technicians, with varying experience, were involved in such counting. Counting of cells within the borders of a grid that were in contact with two adjacent borders was the most common method (17/22, 77{\%}). Of the eight banks (8/22, 36{\%}) that did not calibrate their microscopes, six reported the highest ECD values. Of the 14 others (64{\%}), six applied a “magnification correcting factor” to the initial cell counts. In five of these cases, the corrected ECD was lower than estimated on initial count. Most of the banks (12/22, 55{\%}) counted 100 cells or less in one to six non-adjacent zones of the mosaic. 14 of the banks (14/22, 64{\%}) also graded cell polymegethism while seven (7/22, 32{\%}) also graded pleomorphism (“hexagonality”). Lack of microscope calibration appears to be the leading cause of variance in ECD estimates in French eye banks. Other factors such as differences in counting strategy, the evaluation of smaller numbers of cells, and the different extent of experience of the technicians may also contribute to intraobserver and interobserver variability. Further comparative studies, including cross checking and the outcome of repeated counts from manual methods, are clearly needed with cross calibration to a computer based image archiving and analysis system.",
keywords = "endothelial cell density, corneal endothelial cells, corneal transplant",
author = "G. Thuret and C. Manissolle and S. Acquart and {Le Petit}, J-C. and J. Maugery and L. Campos-Guyotat and Michael Doughty and P. Gain",
note = "<p>Originally published in: British Journal of Opthalmology (2003), 87 (12), pp.1481-1486.</p>",
year = "2003",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1136/bjo.87.12.1481",
language = "English",
journal = "British Journal of Ophthalmology",
issn = "0007-1161",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",

}

Is manual counting of corneal endothelial cell density in eye banks still acceptable? the French experience. / Thuret, G.; Manissolle, C.; Acquart, S.; Le Petit, J-C.; Maugery, J.; Campos-Guyotat, L.; Doughty, Michael; Gain, P.

In: British Journal of Ophthalmology, 01.12.2003.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Is manual counting of corneal endothelial cell density in eye banks still acceptable? the French experience

AU - Thuret, G.

AU - Manissolle, C.

AU - Acquart, S.

AU - Le Petit, J-C.

AU - Maugery, J.

AU - Campos-Guyotat, L.

AU - Doughty, Michael

AU - Gain, P.

N1 - <p>Originally published in: British Journal of Opthalmology (2003), 87 (12), pp.1481-1486.</p>

PY - 2003/12/1

Y1 - 2003/12/1

N2 - The aim of this paper is to examine the differences in manual endothelial cell counting methods in French eye banks and to analyse whether these differences could explain some substantial discrepancies observed in endothelial cell density (ECD) for corneas made available for transplant. A questionnaire was sent to the 22 eye banks asking for details of the technical features of the light microscopes used, the microscope calibration, strategy for cell counting, the technical staff, and the method of presenting endothelial data. All eye banks responded and 91% (20/22) used only manual counting methods, in real time, directly through a microscope, and 62 different technicians, with varying experience, were involved in such counting. Counting of cells within the borders of a grid that were in contact with two adjacent borders was the most common method (17/22, 77%). Of the eight banks (8/22, 36%) that did not calibrate their microscopes, six reported the highest ECD values. Of the 14 others (64%), six applied a “magnification correcting factor” to the initial cell counts. In five of these cases, the corrected ECD was lower than estimated on initial count. Most of the banks (12/22, 55%) counted 100 cells or less in one to six non-adjacent zones of the mosaic. 14 of the banks (14/22, 64%) also graded cell polymegethism while seven (7/22, 32%) also graded pleomorphism (“hexagonality”). Lack of microscope calibration appears to be the leading cause of variance in ECD estimates in French eye banks. Other factors such as differences in counting strategy, the evaluation of smaller numbers of cells, and the different extent of experience of the technicians may also contribute to intraobserver and interobserver variability. Further comparative studies, including cross checking and the outcome of repeated counts from manual methods, are clearly needed with cross calibration to a computer based image archiving and analysis system.

AB - The aim of this paper is to examine the differences in manual endothelial cell counting methods in French eye banks and to analyse whether these differences could explain some substantial discrepancies observed in endothelial cell density (ECD) for corneas made available for transplant. A questionnaire was sent to the 22 eye banks asking for details of the technical features of the light microscopes used, the microscope calibration, strategy for cell counting, the technical staff, and the method of presenting endothelial data. All eye banks responded and 91% (20/22) used only manual counting methods, in real time, directly through a microscope, and 62 different technicians, with varying experience, were involved in such counting. Counting of cells within the borders of a grid that were in contact with two adjacent borders was the most common method (17/22, 77%). Of the eight banks (8/22, 36%) that did not calibrate their microscopes, six reported the highest ECD values. Of the 14 others (64%), six applied a “magnification correcting factor” to the initial cell counts. In five of these cases, the corrected ECD was lower than estimated on initial count. Most of the banks (12/22, 55%) counted 100 cells or less in one to six non-adjacent zones of the mosaic. 14 of the banks (14/22, 64%) also graded cell polymegethism while seven (7/22, 32%) also graded pleomorphism (“hexagonality”). Lack of microscope calibration appears to be the leading cause of variance in ECD estimates in French eye banks. Other factors such as differences in counting strategy, the evaluation of smaller numbers of cells, and the different extent of experience of the technicians may also contribute to intraobserver and interobserver variability. Further comparative studies, including cross checking and the outcome of repeated counts from manual methods, are clearly needed with cross calibration to a computer based image archiving and analysis system.

KW - endothelial cell density

KW - corneal endothelial cells

KW - corneal transplant

U2 - 10.1136/bjo.87.12.1481

DO - 10.1136/bjo.87.12.1481

M3 - Article

JO - British Journal of Ophthalmology

JF - British Journal of Ophthalmology

SN - 0007-1161

ER -