Skip to main content
Journal of Refractive Surgery, 2016;32(6):386–393
Published Online:https://doi.org/10.3928/1081597X-20160217-04Cited by:12

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To develop a normative contrast sensitivity function and examine the postoperative contrast sensitivity outcomes for emmetropic patients with presbyopia implanted with a KAMRA intracorneal inlay (AcuFocus Inc., Irvine, CA) in their non-dominant eyes.

METHODS:

A prospective, non-randomized, multicenter clinical trial was conducted on 507 patients between 45 and 60 years of age who were monocularly implanted with the KAMRA inlay. A predetermined subgroup of 335 patients in the contrast sensitivity substudy were measured preoperatively and postoperatively with the Functional Acuity Contrast Test (FACT) chart in the Optec 6500 Vision Tester (Stereo Optical Co., Chicago, IL) under monocular and binocular, photopic and mesopic without glare, and binocular mesopic with glare conditions each over four spatial frequencies (3, 6, 12, and 18 cycles per degree for photopic conditions and 1.5, 3, 6, and 12 cycles per degree for mesopic conditions). Normative ranges were developed using 1.96 standard deviations from the preoperative mean logCS (log10 unit of contrast sensitivity).

RESULTS:

The preoperative contrast sensitivity measurements were used to develop the normative contrast sensitivity curves. Postoperatively, contrast sensitivity was stable both monocularly and binocularly and average contrast sensitivity remained within the normative ranges. Postoperative contrast sensitivity was mildly reduced monocularly but not binocularly, and the ratio of area under logCS function comparing postoperative to preoperative values was above 90% for all but one condition.

CONCLUSIONS:

Normative contrast sensitivity curves for a presbyopic population are established to provide a referent in the investigation of the impact of other presbyopia-correcting ophthalmic procedures on contrast sensitivity.

[J Refract Surg. 2016;32(6):386–393.]

  • 1.Pesudovs K, Marsack JD, Donnelly WJ, Thibos LN, Applegate RA. Measuring visual acuity—mesopic or photopic conditions, and high or low contrast letters?J Refract Surg. 2004; 20:S508–S514.

    > LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 2.Ginsburg AP. Contrast sensitivity and functional vision. Int Ophthalmol Clin. 2003; 43:5–15.10.1097/00004397-200343020-00004

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 3.Elliott DB. Contrast sensitivity decline with ageing: a neural or optical phenomenon?Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1987; 7:415–9.10.1111/j.1475-1313.1987.tb00771.x

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 4.Elliott D, Whitaker D, MacVeigh D. Neural contribution to spatiotemporal contrast sensitivity decline in healthy ageing eyes. Vision Res. 1990; 30:541–547.10.1016/0042-6989(90)90066-T

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 5.Drum B, Calogero D, Rorer E. Assessment of visual performance in the evaluation of new medical products. Drug Discov Today Technol. 2007; 455–61.10.1016/j.ddtec.2007.10.009

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 6.Benjamin JW. Borish's Clinical Refraction, 1st ed. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company; 1998:109–115.

    > Google Scholar
  • 7.Holden BA, Fricke TR, Ho SM, et al.Global vision impairment due to uncorrected presbyopia. Arch Ophthalmol. 2008; 126:1731–1739.10.1001/archopht.126.12.1731

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 8.Yilmaz OF, Bayraktar S, Agca A, Yilmaz B, McDonald MB, van de Pol C. Intracorneal inlay for the surgical correction of presbyopia. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008; 34:1921–1927.10.1016/j.jcrs.2008.07.015

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 9.Seyeddain O, Bachernegg A, Riha W, et al.Femtosecond laser-assisted small-aperture corneal inlay implantation for corneal compensation of presbyopia: two-year follow-up. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013; 39:234–241.10.1016/j.jcrs.2012.09.018

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 10.Vilupuru S, Lin L, Pepose JS. Comparison of contrast sensitivity and through focus in small-aperture inlay, accommodating intraocular lens, or multifocal intraocular lens subjects. Am J Ophthalmol. 2015; 160:150–162.10.1016/j.ajo.2015.04.023

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 11.Ginsburg AP, Evans DW, Cannon MW, Owsley C, Mulvanny P. Large-sample norms for contrast sensitivity. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1984; 61:80–84.10.1097/00006324-198402000-00003

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 12.Pomerance G, Evans D. Test-retest reliability of the CSV-1000 contrast test and its relationship to glaucoma therapy. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1994; 35:3357–3361.

    > MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 13.Hohberger B, Laemmer R, Adler W, Juenemann AG, Horn FK. Measuring contrast sensitivity in normal subjects with OPTEC 6500: influence of age and glare. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2007; 245:1805–1814.10.1007/s00417-007-0662-x

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 14.Hong YT, Kim SW, Kim EK, Kim T. Contrast sensitivity measurement with 2 contrast sensitivity tests in normal eyes and eyes with cataract. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010; 36:547–552.10.1016/j.jcrs.2009.10.048

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 15.Waring GO. Correction of presbyopia with a small aperture corneal inlay. J Refract Surg. 2011; 27:842–845.10.3928/1081597X-20111005-04

    > LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 16.Kanno M, Kawakami H, Nagaoka S, Kubota S. Biocompatibility of fluorinated polyimide. J Biomed Mater Res. 2002; 60:53–60.10.1002/jbm.1280

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 17.Chua BE, Mitchell P, Cumming RG. Effects of cataract type and location on visual function: the Blue Mountains Eye Study. Eye (Lond). 2004; 18:765–772.10.1038/sj.eye.6701366

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 18.Applegate RA, Howland HC, Sharp RP, Cottingham AJ, Yee RW. Corneal aberrations and visual performance after radial keratotomy. J Refract Surg. 1998; 14:397–407.

    > LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 19.Latham K. Who uses contrast sensitivity in optometric practice?Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1998; 18(suppl 1):S2–S13.10.1016/S0275-5408(97)00103-8

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 20.Puell MC, Palomo C, Sánchez-Ramos C, Villena C. Mesopic contrast sensitivity in the presence or absence of glare in a large driver population. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2004; 242:755–761.10.1007/s00417-004-0951-6

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 21.Pesudovs K, Hazel CA, Doran RM, Elliott DB. The usefulness of Vistech and FACT contrast sensitivity charts for cataract and refractive surgery outcomes research. Br J Ophthalmol. 2004; 88:11–16.10.1136/bjo.88.1.11

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 22.Larsson E, Rydberg A, Holmström G. Contrast sensitivity in 10 year old preterm and full term children: a population based study. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006; 90:87–90.10.1136/bjo.2005.081653

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 23.Arend O, Remky A, Evans D, Stüber R, Harris A. Contrast sensitivity loss is coupled with capillary dropout in patients with diabetes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1997; 38:1819–1824.

    > MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 24.Ghaith AA, Daniel J, Stulting RD, Thompson KP, Lynn M. Contrast sensitivity and glare disability after radial keratotomy and photorefractive keratectomy. Arch Ophthalmol. 1998; 116:12–18.10.1001/archopht.116.1.12

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 25.Dutt S, Steinert RF, Raizman MB, Puliafito CA. One-year results of excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy for low to moderate myopia. Arch Ophthalmol. 1994; 112:1427–1436.10.1001/archopht.1994.01090230041018

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 26.Mutyala S, McDonald MB, Scheinblum KA, Ostrick MD, Brint SF, Thompson H. Contrast sensitivity evaluation after laser in situ keratomileusis. Ophthalmology. 2000; 107:1864–1867.10.1016/S0161-6420(00)00355-9

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 27.Arden GB, Jacobson JJ. A simple grating test for contrast sensitivity: preliminary results indicate value in screening for glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1978; 17:23–32.

    > MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 28.Medina JM, Jiménez JR, Jiménez del Barco L. The effect of pupil size on binocular summation at suprathreshold conditions. Curr Eye Res. 2003; 26:327–334.10.1076/ceyr.26.5.327.15434

    > Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar

We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. For a complete overview of all the cookies used, please see our privacy policy.

×