Martinez A J, Mills M B, Jaceldo K B, Tio F O, Aigbivbalu I B, Hilsenbeck S B, Yee R W
Center for Sight, Georgetown University Hospital, USA.
Cornea. 1995 Sep;14(5):515-22.
Lack of standardization limits the potential of conjunctival impression cytology as a clinical and research tool. This may be attributed to the variety of filter paper currently used. MF Millipore membrane filters of pore sizes 8.0, 3.0, 0.45, 0.22, and 0.025 micron were tested. Samples obtained from 30 eyes of rabbits were randomized and scored by four masked observers for cellularity and morphologic preservation. Cellularity was significantly greater with pore sizes 8.0, 3.0, and 0.45 micron versus 0.22 and 0.025 micron (p < or = 0.001), with an 83% correlation among four scorers. In contrast, morphology was better preserved in the smaller pore size papers (0.22 and 0.025 micron) when compared with larger pore sizes (p = 0.048). Using the best two filter papers (0.22 and 0.025 micron) and an ophthalmodynamometer, either 40, 60, or 80 g of pressure was applied for 3 s to each pore size paper to see whether cellularity could be increased. Cellularity was greater with pore size 0.22 than 0.025 micron (42.3 +/- 19.8 versus 8.7 +/- 6.4). Regardless of the pore size of the filter paper, cellularity was significantly improved at 60 g when compared with either 80 or 40 g. The results show that to maximize cell acquisition, a paper with medium pore size (0.22 micron) and a pressure of 60 g may be the best choice.
缺乏标准化限制了结膜印迹细胞学作为临床和研究工具的潜力。这可能归因于目前使用的多种滤纸。对孔径为8.0、3.0、0.45、0.22和0.025微米的MF Millipore膜过滤器进行了测试。从30只兔眼获取的样本被随机分组，并由四名不知情的观察者对细胞数量和形态保存情况进行评分。与孔径为0.22和0.025微米的过滤器相比，孔径为8.0、3.0和0.45微米的过滤器细胞数量显著更多（p≤0.001），四名评分者之间的相关性为83%。相比之下，与较大孔径的滤纸（8.0、3.0和0.45微米）相比，较小孔径的滤纸（0.22和0.025微米）形态保存得更好（p = 0.048）。使用最佳的两种滤纸（0.22和0.025微米）和眼压计，对每种孔径的滤纸施加40、60或80克压力3秒，以观察细胞数量是否可以增加。孔径为0.22微米的滤纸细胞数量多于0.025微米的滤纸（42.3±19.8对8.7±6.4）。无论滤纸的孔径如何，与80克或40克相比，60克压力下细胞数量显著增加。结果表明，为了最大限度地获取细胞，中等孔径（0.22微米）的滤纸和60克的压力可能是最佳选择。
