Comparison of Donor Corneal Endothelial Cell Density Determined by Eye Banks and by a Central Image Analysis Reading Center Using the Same Image Analysis Method.
Comparison of Donor Corneal Endothelial Cell Density Determined by Eye Banks and by a Central Image Analysis Reading Center Using the Same Image Analysis Method.
复制标题
眼库和中央图像分析阅读中心使用相同图像分析方法测定的供体角膜内皮细胞密度的比较。
DOI：
10.1097/ico.0000000000002935
复制
发表时间：
2022
期刊：
影响因子：
2.8
通讯作者：
Lass,JonathanH
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Huang,Heidi;Benetz,BethAnn;Clover,JamesonM;Titus,Michael;O'Brien,RobertC;Menegay,HarryJ;Lass,JonathanH
目的：本研究的目的是评估眼库（EB）和图像分析阅读中心之间的协议内皮细胞密度（ECD）determinations using the same image analysis method.Methods：角膜图像分析阅读中心（CIARC）确定ECD与一个单一的经验丰富的分析师对EB-获得的中央内皮图像从捐助者打算角膜移植术从2眼库，Everight和狮子VisionGift，使用科南中心分析方法。EBs进行ECD测定各自的图像集使用相同的分析方法与经验丰富的眼库technicies.Results：200供体的平均年龄为54岁（范围30-75岁）。200例患者中有70例（35%）为女性，57例（29%）为糖尿病患者。EB的平均ECD比CIARC高10个细胞/mm 2（P= 0.39），95%的一致性限度为[-304至323个细胞/mm 2]。当根据性别、供体年龄、供体糖尿病、CV、HEX、分析的细胞数量和作为随机效应的EB调整EB和CIARC ECD之间的差异时，平均差异没有实质性变化（在线性混合模型中调整后估计平均差异为20个细胞/mm 2; P= 0.73）。在178个（89%）图像集中，EB确定的术前ECD在CIARC确定的ECD的10%以内，15个（8%）高出10%以上，7个（3%）低出10%以上。结论：当使用相同的图像分析方法时，训练有素的眼库技术人员与来自图像分析阅读中心的有经验的图像分析员在ECD确定方面取得了相当的结果。
Purpose:The purpose of this study was to evaluate agreement between eye banks (EBs) and an image analysis reading center on endothelial cell density (ECD) determinations using the same image analysis method.Methods:The Cornea Image Analysis Reading Center (CIARC) determined ECD with a single experienced analyst on EB-obtained central endothelial images from donors intended for keratoplasty from 2 eye banks, Eversight and Lions VisionGift, using the Konan center analysis method. The EBs performed ECD determination on their respective sets of images using the same analysis method with experienced eye bank technicians.Results:The mean age of the 200 donors was 54 years (range 30–75 years). Seventy (35%) of the 200 patients were women, and 57 (29%) were diabetic. The mean ECD was 10 cells/mm 2 greater by the EBs than by CIARC (P= 0.39), with 95% limits of agreement of [− 304 to 323 cells/mm 2]. The mean difference was not substantially changed when the difference between EBs and CIARC ECD was adjusted for sex, donor age, donor diabetes, CV, HEX, number of cells analyzed, and EBs as a random effect (estimated mean difference of 20 cells/mm 2 after adjustment in a linear mixed model; P= 0.73). The EB-determined preoperative ECD was within 10% of the CIARC-determined ECD for 178 (89%) image sets, with 15 (8%) higher by> 10% and 7 (3%) lower by> 10%.Conclusions:Well-trained eye bank technicians achieve comparable results for ECD determination with an experienced image analyst from an image analysis reading center when the same image analysis method is used.