Observational study demonstrates distinct topographical zones and increased membrane roughness in Fuchs dystrophy, highlighting novel nanoscale structural markers.
Aim To evaluate the potential of a three-dimensional microscope combining Laser scanning confocal imaging and white-light interferometry for quantitative topographic characterisation of Descemet’s membrane (DM) in Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy (FECD). Methods Descemet’s membranes were collected from 38 FECD patients undergoing endothelial keratoplasty and 4 healthy donors. After flat-mounting on glass slide and drying, specimens were analysed using the VK-X3000 system (KEYENCE). Entire samples were reconstructed by image stitching at low magnification (×10) in white-light interferometry mode (0.01nm axial resolution). Higher magnifications (×20-×150) in confocal mode (12 nm axial resolution) enabled detailed structural analysis. Three-dimensional height maps were generated to calculate standardised surface roughness parameters. Guttae and other DM features were classified according to spatial organisation and elevation profiles. Results White-light interferometry enabled full-field mapping of whole 8mm diameter DMs with nanometric vertical resolution (∼2 hours/sample). Surface roughness (Sa) was higher in FECD than in controls (median±IQR: 0.571±0.259 µm vs 0.239±0.161 µm; p = 0.0018). In FECD, three zones were identified: central (guttae buried in the posterior fibrillar layer; Sa 0.442 ± 0.112 µm), paracentral (large uncovered guttae; Sa 0.562±0.170 µm; p = 0.0423), and outer zone (no confluent guttae; Sa 0.261±0.143 µm; p < 0.0001). Confocal 3D imaging revealed radial striae, embossments and furrows in the DM, confluent central guttae, and fused or buried structures. Conclusions Combining white-light interferometry and confocal microscopy enables label-free, high-resolution surface characterisation of DM in FECD, providing quantitative metrics to compare histological subtypes and supporting the predominance of radial structural organisation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Maurin et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: