PURPOSE: To compare the effects of glare on driving performance in patients who had implantation of a blue light-filtering acrylic intraocular lens (IOL) and those who had implantation of an acrylic IOL with no blue-light filter. SETTING: Department of Applied Psychology, Arizona State University, Mesa, Arizona, USA. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: Patients with a blue light-filtering AcrySof Natural SN60AT IOL (study group) and patients with an AcrySof SA60AT IOL with no blue-light filter (control group) who had good visual acuity and a valid driver's license performed left-turn maneuvers in a driving simulator in front of oncoming traffic. The safety margin (time to collision minus time taken to turn at intersection with oncoming traffic) was calculated. The measurements were repeated with a glare source simulating low-angle sun conditions (daytime driving). RESULTS: With glare, the safety margin was statistically significantly greater in the study group (n = 17) than in the control group (n = 17) (mean 2.534 seconds ± 0.488 [SD] and 2.116 ± 0.511 seconds, respectively) (P < .05). Comparing no-glare conditions and glare conditions, the study group had significantly lower glare susceptibility, fewer collisions with the oncoming car, and a lower impact on intersection approach speed than the control group. CONCLUSIONS: The IOL incorporating blue light-filtering technology significantly reduced glare disability and improved the driver's ability to safely execute a left turn with oncoming traffic in the presence of glare simulating low-angle sun conditions. The real-world benefit of this technology is presumably mediated by a stronger signal to detect approaching objects (motion-in-depth) as a result of a reduction in glare disability. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned. Additional disclosures are found in the footnotes.
PURPOSE: To compare the effects of glare on driving performance in patients who had implantation of a blue light-filtering acrylic intraocular lens (IOL) and those who had implantation of an acrylic IOL with no blue-light filter. SETTING: Department of Applied Psychology, Arizona State University, Mesa, Arizona, USA. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS:Patients with a blue light-filtering AcrySof Natural SN60AT IOL (study group) and patients with an AcrySof SA60AT IOL with no blue-light filter (control group) who had good visual acuity and a valid driver's license performed left-turn maneuvers in a driving simulator in front of oncoming traffic. The safety margin (time to collision minus time taken to turn at intersection with oncoming traffic) was calculated. The measurements were repeated with a glare source simulating low-angle sun conditions (daytime driving). RESULTS: With glare, the safety margin was statistically significantly greater in the study group (n = 17) than in the control group (n = 17) (mean 2.534 seconds ± 0.488 [SD] and 2.116 ± 0.511 seconds, respectively) (P < .05). Comparing no-glare conditions and glare conditions, the study group had significantly lower glare susceptibility, fewer collisions with the oncoming car, and a lower impact on intersection approach speed than the control group. CONCLUSIONS: The IOL incorporating blue light-filtering technology significantly reduced glare disability and improved the driver's ability to safely execute a left turn with oncoming traffic in the presence of glare simulating low-angle sun conditions. The real-world benefit of this technology is presumably mediated by a stronger signal to detect approaching objects (motion-in-depth) as a result of a reduction in glare disability. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned. Additional disclosures are found in the footnotes.
Authors: James A Davison; Anil S Patel; Joao P Cunha; Jim Schwiegerling; Orkun Muftuoglu Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2011-05-17 Impact factor: 3.117