Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 23, 2025
Comparison of Agreement and Accuracy using Binocular Wavefront Optometer with Autorefractor and Phoropter
Published on: September 16, 2025
Refractive prediction error in cataract surgery using an optical biometer equipped with anterior segment OCT
Yukihito Kato1, Takashi Kojima, Akeno Tamaoki
1Chukyo Eye Clinic, Nagoya, Japan (Kato, Kei Ichikawa, Tamura, Kazuo Ichikawa); the Department of Ophthalmology, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan (Kojima); the Department of Ophthalmology, Japan Community Healthcare Organization, Chukyo Hospital, Nagoya, Japan (Tamaoki).
Purpose:
To evaluate refractive error after cataract surgery using an optical biometer equipped with anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT).
Setting:
Chukyo Eye Clinic, Nagoya, Japan.
Design:
Retrospective observational design.
Methods:
In total, 150 patients with cataract (150 eyes, mean age 73.4 ± 8.2 years, men 76, women 74), who underwent measurement of parameters with the AS-OCT scanners ANTERION (AS-OCTB) and IOLMaster 700 (OCTB) before cataract surgery, were enrolled in the study. Refractive prediction error was compared between the 2 devices using the SRK/T, Haigis, and Barrett Universal II (UII) formulas for intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation.
Results:
There were significant differences between AS-OCTB and OCTB in axial length, mean corneal refractive power, anterior chamber depth, lens thickness, and corneal diameter (n = 150). In the SRK/T formula, the arithmetic means of refractive prediction errors for AS-OCTB and OCTB were -0.06 ± 0.46 diopters (D) and 0.02 ± 0.42 D, respectively. In the Haigis formula, the arithmetic means of refractive prediction errors for AS-OCTB and OCTB were -0.23 ± 0.40 D and -0.08 ± 0.35 D, respectively. In the Barrett UII formula, the arithmetic means of refractive prediction errors for AS-OCTB and OCTB were -0.02 ± 0.38 D and 0.11 ± 0.36 D, respectively. AS-OCTB showed significantly larger refractive prediction error toward myopia than OCTB in all 3 formulas (P < .0001).
Conclusions:
The refractive prediction error using AS-OCTB showed a small difference from that using OCTB. While clinically comparable, the 2 methods could drive meaningful differences in IOL selection.
