NIDEK ARK 500A Autorefractor/Keratometer

Given modern features and an advanced automated tracking system- paired with an efficient interface, the 500A is an Autorefractor for the modern clinic.

Overview

We’re always talking about how Autorefraction has changed little since its inception; an infrared light and a screen and a cheap printer that spits out some semi-accurate numbers seems to be all it ever is. But the ARK-530A from NIDEK (Marco) seems to have been the instrument that brought Autorefraction out of the dark ages– a huge upgrade even from their own older models (NIDEK 700A anyone?). It’s innovatively superior from most in its class thanks to all new 3D auto-tracking, Pupil Zone imaging methods, greater CCD image quality, and impossibly wide measurement range. The 530A also gives us a beautiful new 5.7″ touch LCD screen, motorized chin-rest, auto-cut printer, easy EHR abilities, and easy capture on nearly every Pupil size; did we also mention its also pretty? Using the 530A in clinical settings lent us a newfound confidence in objective ARK data thanks to a nearly 4.0mm corneal measurement area and an upgraded CCD camera powered by an SLD light that greatly improves actual image quality–even on tougher patients with cataract/IOLs. It also acquires Ks using the traditional method (mire rings) AND peripheral measurements (up to four points) which, from our observations lent more consistent and accurate Keratometric results. It’s not only accurate/consistent on the ideal patient, yet most all (elderly, IOL, cataract, etc…) patients thanks to a minimum pupil size of just 2.00mm, and a nearly impossibly wide spherical measurement range of -30D. Thus it’s accurate, innovative, sleek- and we wish we could leave it there… our only knit picky objection to the 530A’s operation comes by the its auto-tracking 3D functionality seeming to be a bit overbearing at times- thinking it knows best even when it struggling to align itself automatically. We like the idea of auto-tracking, but it seems to still require the operator’s interference, and the on-screen instructions attempting to guide the operator can be less than intuitive at times. We found ourselves preferring manual operation, most of the time.