Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 30, 2025
Comparison of Agreement and Accuracy using Binocular Wavefront Optometer with Autorefractor and Phoropter
Published on: September 16, 2025
Acquisition Time for Swept-Source Optical Biometry Plus Corneal Power Measurement During Cataract Evaluation
Ramón Ruiz-Mesa1, Maria Ruiz-Santos1, Julia Blanch-Ruiz1
1Cataract and Refractive Surgery Department, Oftalvist Jerez de la Frontera, Jerez de la Frontera, Spain.
Purpose:
To compare the acquisition time necessary to obtain the optical biometry plus corneal power measurement using the IOLMaster 700 with central topography with that found using the standard IOLMaster 700 in combination with two corneal topographers, when acquiring biometry measurements during cataract evaluation.
Methods:
This prospective, observational, controlled study included 96 eyes of 96 cataract patients. Acquisition times were registered for different conditions: time required for one complete measurement with IOLMaster 700 with central topography, time required for one complete measurement with standard IOLMaster 700 (without central topography), time required for one complete measurement with standard IOLMaster 700 plus time required for one complete measurement with Cassini, and time required for one complete measurement with standard IOLMaster 700 plus time required for one complete measurement with Pentacam HR. In addition, the agreement between keratometry (K), total keratometry (TK) and equivalent K reading (EKR) parameters using the three devices was performed.
Results:
The post hoc Tukey's test revealed that there were statistically significant differences for all pairwise comparisons (p < 0.001) except for the acquisition times of the IOLMaster with central topography and the standard IOLMaster 700 (p = 0.501). The acquisition time by the IOLMaster 700 with central topography takes approximately three less times than the use of a corneal topographer combined with a biometer. The agreement of K1, K2, TK1, TK2, EKR1 and EKR2 measurements between the three devices revealed statistically significant differences for all possible comparisons (p < 0.001) except for the comparison between the IOLMaster 700 and the Cassini for all parameters (p > 0.05).
Conclusion:
We consider that this is an efficient procedure that improves clinical flow. We also conclude that K readings obtained with the three devices cannot be used interchangeably since there are clinically relevant differences that may affect cataract surgery outcomes.
