Premium
Assessment of the performances of a handheld in vivo confocal microscope for the analysis of human corneal innervation
Author(s) -
Brehon A.,
Perrot J.L.,
Cinotti E.,
Labeille B.,
Grivet D.,
Crouzet E.,
Gain P.,
Thuret G.
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
acta ophthalmologica
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.534
H-Index - 87
eISSN - 1755-3768
pISSN - 1755-375X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1755-3768.2015.1549
Subject(s) - medicine , nerve plexus , confocal , ophthalmology , confocal microscopy , visual field , pathology , optics , physics
Purpose We previously reported, for the first time, the use of a dermatological handheld in vivo confocal microscope ( IVCM ), VivaScope 3000 (Lucid, NY ), for the imaging of the ocular surface and ocular adnexa (Am J Ophthalmol 2015;159:324). Aim To further assess its performances for qualitative and quantitative analysis of corneal innervation. Methods Clinical interventional prospective single‐center study comparing the first version of the handy handheld VivaScope 3000 with the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph ( HRTIII ‐ RCM ) as a reference. The right central subbasal plexus ( SBP ) of healthy corneas of non‐diabetic patients, diabetic patients without peripheral neuropathy and diabetic patients with peripheral neuropathy was analyzed the same day with both IVCM s by the same observer. The three best images were selected for each device and the nerve density, the number of nerves by frame, the number of branch per frame, and tortuosity of the nerves of the central SBP were calculated using NeuronJ. Analyzes were done on similar areas, blind to the IVCM type, then on full fields. Results The VivaScope provided 920 × 920 μm images versus 400 × 400 μm for the HRTIII ‐ RCM . Images of the SBP were easily obtained but the 4 parameters were significantly lower in the 3 populations with the VivaScope despite a larger field of view. Comparisons between populations are ongoing. Conclusions This handheld dermatological IVCM is able to image the SBP but is less informative than the static HRTIII ‐ RCM . For SBP , the larger field is not an advantage because most of the field is out of focus. Improvements of the IVCM objective are proposed. GRANT : project INNOVEYE GIRCI RAA .