Calculation of the effective ECD provides an efficient means to assess density of useful endothelial cells in patients with guttae from Fuchs' endothelial dystrophy. We use the term effective ECD because it includes the endothelial cells that are exposed to the aqueous humor and are available, without the influence of superposed guttae, to serve the barrier and pump functions. Endothelial cells were identified and counted in regions where they were contiguous and sharply defined; and we assumed that this was representative of all nonguttae regions in the image sample area, including regions where cell boundaries were poorly defined because of defocus or other poor image quality. The combination of this density estimate in contiguous areas of cells with the fraction of guttae in the image extends the sample area to the entire image, a larger sample area than for any subimage. The larger sample area reduces sample bias in corneas with endothelium that is intermittently broken by guttae, particularly if the guttae are large enough to fill a significant portion of the sample area.
The sample area of the ConfoScan 4 (Nidek Technologies, Inc.) with the ×20 objective was approximately 0.33 mm
2, and this is somewhat larger than areas obtained with typical noncontact specular microscopes, which range from 0.10 to 0.25 mm
2.
8,18 The larger area should improve precision of cell density measurement by increasing the chance of finding small isolated regions of guttae or cells in mild and severe cases, respectively. Combining samples from multiple scans should further improve precision of the cell density estimate, particularly in the later stages of the disease in which regions of contiguous cells are few. In some of our images the guttae completely filled the field; in images from other scans through the same endothelium, only a few small patches of cells were visible. Individual passes from the same scan captured different, although in some cases overlapping, regions of the endothelium with this noncontact objective lens because motion of the cornea shifted the location of the image. Multiple scans would have a greater chance of sampling new areas and increasing the size of the total sample. Cell density in these local regions was in some frames as high as 3000 cells/mm
2, but when these were combined with other frames that had fewer cells from adjacent regions of the same cornea, the mean density was considerably lower. In individual frames that had visible cells, the local cell density was always greater than 640 cells/mm
2 in our development group and greater than 1010 cells/mm
2 in our test group, which also had more severe cases. The larger area covered by guttae in severe cases decreased the effective ECD even when the local ECD was high. The relatively high local ECD even in the most severe cases of Fuchs' dystrophy suggests that late-stage symptoms are not entirely caused by a degeneration of endothelial cells, but are also the result of guttae covering or displacing endothelial cells and reducing the number of cells that serve the pump and barrier functions.
The use of the effective ECD is based on several assumptions. We assume that the local ECD of contiguous cells with sharp boundaries is representative of viable cell density in all areas of the image that are not covered by guttae, regardless of whether images of cells are clear or degraded so that their boundaries cannot be identified. We also assume that the area covered by guttae can be distinguished from the cellular area by image brightness. When the density of guttae was low in early stages of the disease, there was good contrast between the darker guttae and the background; but as the disease progressed and guttae became more confluent, brightness of their images became less uniform, and it was necessary to use care when selecting image filtering and thresholds that separate them from cells. For this reason, we set the selection threshold manually while observing each image. Finally, we assume that the exposed cells are viable whereas cells in the area covered by guttae do not serve a normal barrier or pump activity. This approach does not address the relationship between guttae and endothelial cells; guttae could displace or be covered by endothelial cells. In either case we assume that the area covered by guttae is nonfunctional, although we did not measure either pump or barrier function. We do not have direct evidence to support these assumptions, although they are consistent with the high correlation between the effective ECD and the clinical grade of the disease.
The mean difference between the predicted grade and the subjective grade in the test group was small (−0.1) and the two methods were well correlated, as illustrated in
Figures 6 and
7. The greatest differences between predicted and clinical grade were in those corneas graded 2, and the strongest relationship between these grades was at subjective grade 3 and above. It is not clear why variability of the predicted grade was high in corneas with clinical grade 2, although this may in part have been associated with a limited ability to distinguish subjectively between low grades of the disease. Differences between the predicted grade and the clinical grade were similar to the differences in clinical grade determined by two observers, as illustrated by Repp et al.
9 The high variability at low grades was not apparent in our development group, in which we used the mean of two clinical grades.
In principle, the fixed-frame method should provide an estimate of ECD similar to the effective ECD, although the sample area is smaller than the full frame size and subject to local variations in the distribution of guttae. However, the estimate of cell density by this method was consistently lower than the effective ECD, and gave densities that changed minimally between grades 3 and 6. The lower estimates from the fixed-frame method were likely due to the inability to identify all cells in the area of the fixed frame. Unlike our estimate of the local density where the regions of cells were selected for clarity, the fixed-frame ECD required counting all cells in the selection region. Not all cell boundaries in this region were distinct, and because they could not be clearly identified, many cells were not counted. One could select only frames that provided clear images of all cells within a selection area; but in many endothelial scans of patients with Fuchs' dystrophy, clear images are difficult to record because of degradation from the poor optical quality of the anterior cornea. Jonuscheit et al.
19 also estimated lower endothelial cell densities when they used a fixed-frame method compared to planimetric or variable frame methods in endothelial images from the ConfoScan 4 (Nidek Technologies, Inc.). Their patients had deep anterior lamellar or penetrating keratoplasties
19 and clear grafts,
15 and it was not clear why this method yielded a lower estimate.
The relationship between effective ECD and mean subepithelial image brightness was weak, although it demonstrates that corneas with the lowest ECDs have the highest scatter from their anterior stroma. This suggests at least a partial relationship between the condition of the endothelium and the transparency of the anterior cornea. Indeed, when the defective endothelium is replaced in endothelial keratoplasty, the backscatter from the anterior stroma gradually decreases, though not to normal.
13,20 Whether or not the relationship between the anterior corneal changes and ECD is causal will require further studies.
In many studies that report ECD in Fuchs' dystrophy corneas, the method used to determine cell density is not described; and while most studies suggest use of a fixed-frame method, it is not clear if this method or a local density of contiguous endothelial cells was used.
3,21–24 Of the three methods we used to assess ECD in Fuchs' dystrophy patients with guttae, we propose that the calculation of the effective ECD corresponds to the clinical grade of the disease and recommend using this method to assess and report ECD in these patients. The local ECD reflects the condition of local patches of endothelium, but does not represent the number of cells across a large area that includes guttae and does not show a smooth progression through the full range of the disease severity, particularly if only one frame is used to sample the endothelium. A small high-density patch of cells could give an overestimate of the effective cell density and an underestimate of the severity of the disease. In contrast, the inability to identify all cells in the selected area when using the fixed-frame method biases the estimate with this method toward low densities. Because of the generally poorer quality of endothelial images in the most severe cases of this disease, the fixed-frame cell density may not be sensitive to changes in severity at grade 3 and above, depending on the quality of the images. In addition, the cell density in a fixed frame can differ considerably depending on where in the confocal image the frame is placed (
Fig. 1).
The effective ECD decreases smoothly toward zero as disease severity increases and correlates inversely with the full range of the subjective severity scale that we used, as demonstrated in
Figure 5. It can be used to predict the grade of severity (
Fig. 6), although in our test group the predicted grade was most consistent with the grade from one observer for grades 3 and above. This calculation provides an objective means of assessing the endothelium in Fuchs' dystrophy and should be independent of the observer.