Simran R Sarin, Matthew Kigin, Evan Balk, Ryan Diel, Jennifer Ling, Mark A Greiner, Elliott H Sohn, Mark E Wilkinson, Timothy Brown, Christopher S Sales
{"title":"Functional Assessment of FECD in the National Advanced Driving Simulator: Initial Study of Nighttime Glare and Scheimpflug Imaging.","authors":"Simran R Sarin, Matthew Kigin, Evan Balk, Ryan Diel, Jennifer Ling, Mark A Greiner, Elliott H Sohn, Mark E Wilkinson, Timothy Brown, Christopher S Sales","doi":"10.1097/ICO.0000000000003894","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The aim of this study was to quantify nighttime driving differences in patients with Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy (FECD) using the FDA-validated National Advanced Driving Simulator MiniSim.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a pilot study to calculate sample size, followed by a prospective study with 6 patients with FECD and 6 controls. Participants underwent Snellen visual acuity (VA) testing, Mars contrast sensitivity (CS) assessment, and Scheimpflug tomography. Participants completed 3 simulated driving scenarios, identifying hazards while detection distances were tracked. Driving scenarios simulated glare conditions from oncoming headlights at night: \"variable glare\" modulated glare intensity with passing traffic, \"constant glare\" kept glare intensity fixed, and \"no glare.\" The primary outcome was hazard recognition under \"variable glare.\"</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Age, CS, and VA did not differ significantly between groups. Anterior and posterior densitometry were worse in the FECD group versus controls (anterior: 37.9 ± 6.0 vs. 28.9 ± 1.5, P = 0.01; posterior: 20.1 ± 3.1 vs. 16.5 ± 1.0, P = 0.02). Patients with FECD recognized 14% fewer hazards than controls (variable glare: 81.8 ± 12.1 vs. 95.8 ± 4.7%, P = 0.03). Patients with FECD required being nearly twice as close to hazards to recognize them versus controls (76.5 ± 38.8 vs. 137.7 ± 51.9 ft; P = 0.04). Tomographic markers of subclinical corneal edema (r = -0.61, P = 0.03) and higher anterior densitometry values (r = -0.61; P = 0.04) correlated with shorter hazard detection distance under \"constant glare.\" Thicker central corneal thickness (variable glare: r = -0.60, P = 0.04) and higher posterior densitometry values correlated with lower hazard recognition scores (variable glare: r = -0.67, P = 0.02; constant glare: r = -0.65, P = 0.02).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite normal VA and CS, patients with FECD performed significantly worse in driving simulations than controls. Driving disability was associated with tomographic measures of subclinical corneal edema and abnormal corneal densitometry.</p>","PeriodicalId":10710,"journal":{"name":"Cornea","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cornea","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ICO.0000000000003894","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this study was to quantify nighttime driving differences in patients with Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy (FECD) using the FDA-validated National Advanced Driving Simulator MiniSim.
Methods: We conducted a pilot study to calculate sample size, followed by a prospective study with 6 patients with FECD and 6 controls. Participants underwent Snellen visual acuity (VA) testing, Mars contrast sensitivity (CS) assessment, and Scheimpflug tomography. Participants completed 3 simulated driving scenarios, identifying hazards while detection distances were tracked. Driving scenarios simulated glare conditions from oncoming headlights at night: "variable glare" modulated glare intensity with passing traffic, "constant glare" kept glare intensity fixed, and "no glare." The primary outcome was hazard recognition under "variable glare."
Results: Age, CS, and VA did not differ significantly between groups. Anterior and posterior densitometry were worse in the FECD group versus controls (anterior: 37.9 ± 6.0 vs. 28.9 ± 1.5, P = 0.01; posterior: 20.1 ± 3.1 vs. 16.5 ± 1.0, P = 0.02). Patients with FECD recognized 14% fewer hazards than controls (variable glare: 81.8 ± 12.1 vs. 95.8 ± 4.7%, P = 0.03). Patients with FECD required being nearly twice as close to hazards to recognize them versus controls (76.5 ± 38.8 vs. 137.7 ± 51.9 ft; P = 0.04). Tomographic markers of subclinical corneal edema (r = -0.61, P = 0.03) and higher anterior densitometry values (r = -0.61; P = 0.04) correlated with shorter hazard detection distance under "constant glare." Thicker central corneal thickness (variable glare: r = -0.60, P = 0.04) and higher posterior densitometry values correlated with lower hazard recognition scores (variable glare: r = -0.67, P = 0.02; constant glare: r = -0.65, P = 0.02).
Conclusions: Despite normal VA and CS, patients with FECD performed significantly worse in driving simulations than controls. Driving disability was associated with tomographic measures of subclinical corneal edema and abnormal corneal densitometry.
期刊介绍:
For corneal specialists and for all general ophthalmologists with an interest in this exciting subspecialty, Cornea brings together the latest clinical and basic research on the cornea and the anterior segment of the eye. Each volume is peer-reviewed by Cornea''s board of world-renowned experts and fully indexed in archival format. Your subscription brings you the latest developments in your field and a growing library of valuable professional references.
Sponsored by The Cornea Society which was founded as the Castroviejo Cornea Society in 1975.