Evidence Hub

Scheimpflug backscatter imaging of the fibrillar layer in Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy

Agathe Hribek, M. Mestanoglu, T. Clahsen, Niklas Reinking, Falk Frentzen, Antonia Howaldt, S. Siebelmann, B. Bachmann et al.

American journal of ophthalmology-glaucoma, 2021

34 participants · 12 citations

Abstract

PURPOSE

A central collagen-rich subendothelial fibrillar layer (FL) correlates with areas of accentuated loss of corneal endothelial cells in advanced Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy (FECD). The present study sought to investigate if the FL may be visualized by en face Scheimpflug backscatter imaging in vivo.

DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of a prospective observational case series.

METHODS

Thirty-four eyes (34 subjects) undergoing Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) surgery with preoperative high-quality Scheimpflug backscatter imaging data were included. The Descemet endothelium complex (DEC) was retrieved during DMEK surgery and immunofluorescence staining was performed for collagens I, III, and IV. FL morphology in en face Scheimpflug backscatter and immunofluorescence imaging was compared and agreement of FL parameters was analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots.

RESULTS

Scheimpflug backscatter imaging delineated the FL in n=26 eyes and was FL-negative in n=8 eyes with deviation compared to immunofluorescence in one case and good agreement of morphology characteristics. Horizontal caliper diameter±standard deviation was 4.84±0.85mm, vertical caliper diameter was 3.92±0.78mm, maximum caliper diameter was 5.12±0.82mm and surface area was 12.43±4.74mm2. Compared to immunofluorescence imaging, mean difference (95% limits of agreement (LOA)) and ICC were for horizontal caliper diameter 0.13mm(-0.81 to 1.1mm) and 0.88,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 34 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free