PURPOSE: To determine whether differences exist in the driving performance of patients with bilateral Array multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) and those with bilateral AMO monofocal IOLs under low-contrast environmental conditions. SETTING: The Iowa Driving Simulator at the Center for Computer Aided Design, the University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA. METHODS: This prospective study was a test-operator-masked, parallel-group comparison of the driving performance of 33 bilateral multifocal IOL patients and 33 bilateral monofocal IOL patients from the U.S. Array Multifocal study. Driving performance was evaluated under 3 poor visibility conditions (clear weather at night, clear weather at night in the presence of a glare source, and fog). Measures of performance included recognition rates and distances for signs, as well as detection rates, distances, and avoidance behaviors for hazards. Contrast acuity and sensitivity were also measured to evaluate possible correlations with driving performance. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences between the IOL groups were found in 26 of 30 comparisons (86.7%). The monofocal group performed better than the multifocal group in comparisons in which there were statistically significant differences: the percentage of correctly recognized warning signs at night in clear weather (P = .028), sign recognition distances for guide (P = .030) and warning (P = .036) signs in fog, and the detection distance for 1 of 4 hazards (suitcase; P = .026). Correlation coefficients between driving performance and low-contrast acuity and sensitivity were statistically significant; however, they were low and not likely predictive of driving performance. CONCLUSION: Differences between patients with bilateral multifocal IOLs and those with bilateral monofocal IOLs were detected; however, the results indicate no consistent difference in driving performance and safety.
PURPOSE: To determine whether differences exist in the driving performance of patients with bilateral Array multifocal intraocular lenses (IOLs) and those with bilateral AMO monofocal IOLs under low-contrast environmental conditions. SETTING: The Iowa Driving Simulator at the Center for Computer Aided Design, the University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA. METHODS: This prospective study was a test-operator-masked, parallel-group comparison of the driving performance of 33 bilateral multifocal IOL patients and 33 bilateral monofocal IOL patients from the U.S. Array Multifocal study. Driving performance was evaluated under 3 poor visibility conditions (clear weather at night, clear weather at night in the presence of a glare source, and fog). Measures of performance included recognition rates and distances for signs, as well as detection rates, distances, and avoidance behaviors for hazards. Contrast acuity and sensitivity were also measured to evaluate possible correlations with driving performance. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences between the IOL groups were found in 26 of 30 comparisons (86.7%). The monofocal group performed better than the multifocal group in comparisons in which there were statistically significant differences: the percentage of correctly recognized warning signs at night in clear weather (P = .028), sign recognition distances for guide (P = .030) and warning (P = .036) signs in fog, and the detection distance for 1 of 4 hazards (suitcase; P = .026). Correlation coefficients between driving performance and low-contrast acuity and sensitivity were statistically significant; however, they were low and not likely predictive of driving performance. CONCLUSION: Differences between patients with bilateral multifocal IOLs and those with bilateral monofocal IOLs were detected; however, the results indicate no consistent difference in driving performance and safety.