Comparison of two different contrast sensitivity devices in young adults with normal visual acuity with or without refractive surgery

This study investigated the reliability and correlation of two contrast sensitivity test (CST) devices in young adults with normal visual acuity, with or without refractive surgery. 57 patients aged 20–39 years who received both manual (OPTEC-6500) and automated CST (CGT-2000) examinations from June 19 to July 24, 2021 were retrospectively enrolled. Patients with corrected visual acuity under 20/20 or history of ocular surgery other than refractive surgery were excluded. 82 eyes of 41 patients (40 eyes with and 42 without history of refractive surgery) were enrolled. Mean time taken to complete each examination was 396.4 ± 20.4 and 286.8 ± 2.3 s using manual and automated CST, respectively (P < 0.001). Patients who underwent refractive surgery had significantly decreased area under the log contrast sensitivity formula (AULCSF) in mesopic compared with photopic conditions in automated CST examinations (AULCSF difference 0.415 vs. 0.323 in patients with and without refractive surgery, P < 0.001), but there was no significant difference in manual CST examinations. Patients who reported decreased subjective night vision had significantly decreased AULCSF in automated CST examinations, but there was no significant difference in manual CST examinations. Compared with manual CST, automated CST was quicker and correlated well with decrease in subjective night vision.