Benchmarking Visual Performance with Monofocal Intraocular Lenses with and without Enhanced Optical Properties in a Nighttime Driving Simulator Environment: A Proof-of-Concept Study

Abstract

Background The purpose of this study is to introduce a method for benchmarking intraocular lenses during driving activities under highly standardized conditions, specifically with regard to visual acuity (VA) and contrast sensitivity (CS). Therefore, patients with intraocular lens (IOL) implants ICB00 (Tecnis Eyhance, Johnson & Johnson, Santa Ana, CA, USA) vs. CNA0T0 (Clareon, Alcon Laboratories Inc., Fort Worth, TX, USA) were examined clinically and in a nighttime driving simulator.

Patients and Methods Clinical tests for high (HCVA), low contrast (LCVA) distant VA, and mesopic CS were conducted in subjects at least 2 months after binocular IOL surgery (inclusion criteria: VA > 20/25, ophthalmologically normal, except cataract surgery). All patients completed a straight driving simulator route. VA, CS, and halo size were assessed binocularly during nighttime driving using eight-position Landolt Cs in four different locations and two (far and intermediate) distances.

Results Results are presented as median/interquartile range: ICB00 data (corresponding CNA0T0 data are shown in brackets): 5 (6) subjects, aged 69.6/8.3 (71.1/13.0) years were enrolled. Clinical tests: logMAR HCVA 0.11/0.39 (0.00/0.51), logMAR LCVA 0.78/0.52 (0.80/0.54); logCS without glare 0.50/0.31 (0.30/0.65), logCS with glare 0.20/0.15 (0.20/0.5). Nighttime driving simulator: logMAR VA thresholds for right roadside, dashboard, navigation screen, and interior rear-view mirror were 0.50/0.06 (0.57/0.22), 0.81/0.07 (0.91/0.14), 0.80/0.17 (0.92/0.27), 0.50/0.11 (0.63/0.26); logCS thresholds were1.53/0.67 (1.00/0.81), 0.82/0.11 (0.61/0.19), 0.71/0.14 (0.50/0.15), 0.87/0.07 (0.81/0.11). Halo size: 5.40°/0.89° (5.88°/2.00°).

Conclusions Within a nighttime driving simulator environment, ICB00 exceeded CNA0T0 in median logMAR (VA) and logCS by 0.1 log unit at intermediate distances (dashboard, navigation screen). The clinical test for far and remote distances did not show a difference. These results confirm benefits of monofocal IOLs with enhanced optical properties for intermediate distances compared to conventional monofocal lenses within the target medium distance ranges.

Key words

IOL - monofocal intraocular lens - driving simulator - nighttime driving - glare

Publication History

Received: 21 December 2021

Accepted: 07 February 2022

Article published online:
14 April 2022

• Literatur/References

• 1 Kraftfahrtbundesamt. Verkehr in Kilometern – Inländerfahrleistung (VK), Entwicklung der Fahrleistungen nach Fahrzeugarten seit 2016. Im Internet (Stand 10.03.2022): https://www.kba.de/DE/Statistik/Kraftverkehr/VerkehrKilometer/vk_inlaenderfahrleistung/2020/verkehr_in_kilometern_kurzbericht_pdf.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=5
• 2 Statistisches Bundesamt. Verkehrsunfälle – Zeitreihen – 2019. Im Internet (Stand 10.03.2022): https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Verkehrsunfaelle/Publikationen/Downloads-Verkehrsunfaelle/verkehrsunfaelle-zeitreihen-pdf-5462403.pdf?__blob=publicationFile
• 3 Wood JM, Owens DA. Standard measures of visual acuity do not predict driversʼ recognition performance under day or night conditions. Optom Vis Sci 2005; 82: 698-705
• 4 Harman FE, Maling S, Kampougeris G. et al. Comparing the 1CU accommodative, multifocal, and monofocal intraocular lenses: a randomized trial. Ophthalmology 2008; 115: 993-1001.e2 DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2007.08.042.
• 5 Kamlesh. Dadeya S, Kaushik S. Contrast sensitivity and depth of focus with aspheric multifocal versus conventional monofocal intraocular lens. Can J Ophthalmol 2001; 36: 197-201 DOI: 10.1016/s0008-4182(01)80040-5.
• 6 Leyland MD, Langan L, Goolfee F. et al. Prospective randomised double-masked trial of bilateral multifocal, bifocal or monofocal intraocular lenses. Eye (Lond) 2002; 16: 481-490 DOI: 10.1038/sj.eye.6700077.
• 7 Rossetti L, Carraro F, Rovati M. et al. Performance of diffractive multifocal intraocular lenses in extracapsular cataract surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 1994; 20: 124-128 DOI: 10.1016/s0886-3350(13)80150-2.
• 8 Savini G, Schiano-Lomoriello D, Balducci N. et al. Visual performance of a new extended depth-of-focus intraocular lens compared to a distance-dominant diffractive multifocal intraocular lens. J Refract Surg 2018; 34: 228-235
• 9 Baldassare R, Bedi R. Symfony Extended Depth of Focus IOL: A Review of Reported Data. Curr Ophthalmol Rep 2017; 5: 225-231 DOI: 10.1007/s40135-017-0143-2.
• 10 Cochener B. Concerto Study Group. Clinical outcomes of a new extended range of vision intraocular lens: International Multicenter Concerto Study. J Cataract Refract Surg 2016; 42: 1268-1275 DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2016.06.033.
• 11 Hamid A, Sokwala A. A more natural way of seeing: visual performance of three presbyopia correcting intraocular lenses. Open J Ophthalmol 2016; 6: 176-183
• 12 Pedrotti E, Bruni E, Bonacci E. et al. Comparative analysis of the clinical outcomes with a monofocal and an extended range of vision intraocular lens. J Refract Surg 2016; 32: 436-442 DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20160428-06.
• 13 Mencucci R, Cennamo M, Venturi D. et al. Visual outcome, optical quality, and patient satisfaction with a new monofocal IOL, enhanced for intermediate vision: Preliminary results. J Cataract Refract Surg 2020; 46: 378-387 DOI: 10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000000061.
• 14 Bach M. The Freiburg Visual Acuity Test – Automatic Measurement of Visual Acuity. Optom Vis Sci 1996; 73: 49-53 DOI: 10.1097/00006324-199601000-00008.
• 15 Ungewiss J, Wörner M, Schiefer U. A driving simulator as a tool for benchmarking optical lenses. Conception of the Aalen Mobility Perception & Exploration Lab (AMPEL). MAFO 2020; 5: 10-14
• 16 Johnson CA, Keltner JL. Optimal rates of movement for kinetic perimetry. Arch Ophthalmol 1987; 105: 73-75
• 17 Hayashi K, Ogawa S, Manabe S. et al. Visual outcomes in eyes with a distance-dominant diffractive multifocal intraocular lens with low near addition power. Br J Ophthalmol 2015; 99: 1466-1470 DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2014-306476.
• 18 Featherstone KA, Bloomfield JR, Lang AJ. et al. Driving simulation study: bilateral array multifocal versus bilateral AMO monofocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 1999; 25: 1254-1262
• 19 Cillino S, Casuccio A, Di Pace F. et al. One-year outcomes with new-generation multifocal intraocular lenses. Ophthalmology 2008; 115: 1508-1516
• 20 Haaskjold E, Allen ED, Burton RL. et al. Contrast sensitivity after implantation of diffractive bifocal and monofocal intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg 1998; 24: 653-658 DOI: 10.1016/s0886-3350(98)80260-5.
• 21 Martínez Palmer A, Gómez Faiña P, España Albelda A. et al. Visual function with bilateral implantation of monofocal and multifocal intraocular lenses: a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial. J Refract Surg 2008; 24: 257-264 DOI: 10.3928/1081597X-20080301-07.
• 22 Percival SP, Setty SS. Prospectively randomized trial comparing the pseudoaccommodation of the AMO ARRAY multifocal lens and a monofocal lens. J Cataract Refract Surg 1993; 19: 26-31 DOI: 10.1016/s0886-3350(13)80275-1.
• 23 Schmitz S, Dick HB, Krummenauer F. et al. Contrast sensitivity and glare disability by halogen light after monofocal and multifocal lens implantation. Br J Ophthalmol 2000; 84: 1109-1112
• 24 Vos JJ. On the cause of disability glare and its dependence on glare angle, age and ocular pigmentation. Clin Exp Optom 2003; 86: 363-370 DOI: 10.1111/j.1444-0938.2003.tb03080.x.
• 25 Pepose JS, Qazi MA, Davies J. et al. Visual performance of patients with bilateral vs. combination Crystalens, ReZoom, and ReSTOR intraocular lens implants. Am J Ophthalmol 2007; 144: 347-357 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2007.05.036.