加入VIP 上传考博资料 您的流量 增加流量 考博报班 每日签到
   
主题 : Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia
级别: 禁止发言
显示用户信息 
楼主  发表于: 2009-06-05   

Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia

ABSTRACT Hw]E#S  
Purpose: To quantify the prevalence of cataract, the outcomes CJ\a7=*i  
of cataract surgery and the factors related to -`~qmRpqY  
unoperated cataract in Australia. &J6`Q<U!  
Methods: Participants were recruited from the Visual D*%am|QL  
Impairment Project: a cluster, stratified sample of more than bQt:=>  
5000 Victorians aged 40 years and over. At examination 4k;FZo]S  
sites interviews, clinical examinations and lens photography #{8I FA  
were performed. Cataract was defined in participants who pbzFzLal  
had: had previous cataract surgery, cortical cataract greater W%!(kN&d  
than 4/16, nuclear greater than Wilmer standard 2, or $N=&D_Q  
posterior subcapsular greater than 1 mm2. :(n<c  
Results: The participant group comprised 3271 Melbourne |h]V9=  
residents, 403 Melbourne nursing home residents and 1473 vA/SrX.  
rural residents.The weighted rate of any cataract in Victoria G]'ah1W  
was 21.5%. The overall weighted rate of prior cataract #d-({blo<  
surgery was 3.79%. Two hundred and forty-nine eyes had 5*YoK)2J  
had prior cataract surgery. Of these 249 procedures, 49 @t9HRL?T~  
(20%) were aphakic, 6 (2.4%) had anterior chamber uY& 1[(Pb  
intraocular lenses and 194 (78%) had posterior chamber M~:_^B  
intraocular lenses.Two hundred and eleven of these operated *-T.xo  
eyes (85%) had best-corrected visual acuity of 6/12 or <7^ |@L 6  
better, the legal requirement for a driver’s license.Twentyseven E\[BE<y  
(11%) had visual acuity of less than 6/18 (moderate o1.~g'!^  
vision impairment). Complications of cataract surgery 3B1\-ry1M  
caused reduced vision in four of the 27 eyes (15%), or 1.9% ]01`r/->\  
of operated eyes. Three of these four eyes had undergone \Ow F!~&  
intracapsular cataract extraction and the fourth eye had an F9r.DG$}  
opaque posterior capsule. No one had bilateral vision ; I>nA6A  
impairment as a result of cataract surgery. Surprisingly, no 2 *NPK}  
particular demographic factors (such as age, gender, rural S<nF>JRJa  
residence, occupation, employment status, health insurance t+?Bb7p,H  
status, ethnicity) were related to the presence of unoperated 5|H;%T 3_  
cataract. $C[z]}iOi  
Conclusions: Although the overall prevalence of cataract is k~tEUsv  
quite high, no particular subgroup is systematically underserviced )4g_S?l=  
in terms of cataract surgery. Overall, the results of ,->ihxf  
cataract surgery are very good, with the majority of eyes OgF[=  
achieving driving vision following cataract extraction. 8+'}`  
Key words: cataract extraction, health planning, health J6Ilg@}\  
services accessibility, prevalence Px_8lB/;  
INTRODUCTION 1w>[&#7  
Cataract is the leading cause of blindness worldwide and, in _^<vp  
Australia, cataract extractions account for the majority of all jX7K- L  
ophthalmic procedures.1 Over the period 1985–94, the rate fQoAdw  
of cataract surgery in Australia was twice as high as would be 4E''pW]8  
expected from the growth in the elderly population.1 TK5$-6k  
Although there have been a number of studies reporting M^kaik  
the prevalence of cataract in various populations,2–6 there is FWW4n_74  
little information about determinants of cataract surgery in 392V\qtS  
the population. A previous survey of Australian ophthalmologists 7F"ljkN1S  
showed that patient concern and lifestyle, rather >k @t.PeoV  
than visual acuity itself, are the primary factors for referral stw@@GQ  
for cataract surgery.7 This supports prior research which has lU1SN/'zx  
shown that visual acuity is not a strong predictor of need for #]Vw$X_S  
cataract surgery.8,9 Elsewhere, socioeconomic status has |gk*{3~y  
been shown to be related to cataract surgery rates.10 Q 8]X  
To appropriately plan health care services, information is Ec7xwPk  
needed about the prevalence of age-related cataract in the ?wtKi#k'v#  
community as well as the factors associated with cataract \%r#>8c8  
surgery. The purpose of this study is to quantify the prevalence ]D6<6OB  
of any cataract in Australia, to describe the factors $ DN.  
related to unoperated cataract in the community and to ,.Gp_BI  
describe the visual outcomes of cataract surgery. g!0 j1  
METHODS IsE&k2 SD  
Study population B} qRz  
Details about the study methodology for the Visual hTBJ\1 -  
Impairment Project have been published previously.11 P0UR{tK  
Briefly, cluster sampling within three strata was employed to n^' d8Y(  
recruit subjects aged 40 years and over to participate. !KV!Tkx h  
Within the Melbourne Statistical Division, nine pairs of l"8g9z  
census collector districts were randomly selected. Fourteen 1XS~b-St  
nursing homes within a 5 km radius of these nine test sites 2K~v`c*4  
were randomly chosen to recruit nursing home residents. $ (&uaDYv  
Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology (2000) 28, 77–82 -Ua5anz B  
Original Article )+FnwW  
Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia v0'z''KM!  
Catherine A McCarty PhD, MPH, Mukesh B Nanjan PhD, Hugh R Taylor MD 0Cc3NNdz  
Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia 1dr g5  
n Correspondence: Dr Cathy McCarty MPH, Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, 32 Gisborne Street, East Melbourne, }r04*P(  
Victoria 3002, Australia. Email: cathy@cera.unimelb.edu.au qRT5|\l  
78 McCarty et al. ?r;F'%N=  
Finally, four pairs of census collector districts in four rural 65B&>`H~  
Victorian communities were randomly selected to recruit rural w[2E :Nj  
residents. A household census was conducted to identify .WglLUJ:Z  
eligible residents aged 40 years and over who had been a s#~VN;-I  
resident at that address for at least 6 months. At the time of E=.J*7  
the household census, basic information about age, sex, 8hV4l'Pa72  
country of birth, language spoken at home, education, use of =>*}qen  
corrective spectacles and use of eye care services was collected. 9 Eh*r@>  
Eligible residents were then invited to attend a local w_@6!zm  
examination site for a more detailed interview and examination. ml~ )7J  
The study protocol was approved by the Royal Victorian ;&b=>kPlZ  
Eye and Ear Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee. *{fZA;<R  
Assessment of cataract lz).=N}m  
A standardized ophthalmic examination was performed after _=w=!U&W  
pupil dilatation with one drop of 10% phenylephrine <95*z @  
hydrochloride. Lens opacities were graded clinically at the "t{D5{q|[k  
time of the examination and subsequently from photos using FN0<iL  
the Wilmer cataract photo-grading system.12 Cortical and B)DtJ f  
posterior subcapsular (PSC) opacities were assessed on >wV2` 6  
retroillumination and measured as the proportion (in 1/16) -z/>W+k  
of pupil circumference occupied by opacity. For this analysis, &I(3/u  
cortical cataract was defined as 4/16 or greater opacity, ZYl*-i&~?  
PSC cataract was defined as opacity equal to or greater than uCFpH5>  
1 mm2 and nuclear cataract was defined as opacity equal to (.M &nN'Ce  
or greater than Wilmer standard 2,12 independent of visual E-rGOm" m  
acuity. Examples of the minimum opacities defined as cortical, ( Q k*B  
nuclear and PSC cataract are presented in Figure 1. L{1PCs36c  
Bilateral congenital cataracts or cataracts secondary to k1^&;}/f:  
intraocular inflammation or trauma were excluded from the ! "^//2N+,  
analysis. Two cases of bilateral secondary cataract and eight |>p?Cm  
cases of bilateral congenital cataract were excluded from the yzCamm4~0  
analyses. 6$+F5T  
A Topcon® SL5 photo slit-lamp (Topcon America Corp., ^^*dHWHn<  
Paramus, NJ, USA) with a 0.1 mm slit beam of 9.0 mm in !_1RQ5]^  
height set to an incident angle of 30° was used for examinations. pu+jw <7  
Ektachrome® 200 ASA colour slide film (Eastman ~p/1 9/  
Kodak Company, Rochester, NY, USA) was used to photograph o7@81QA!e  
the nuclear opacities. The cortical opacities were v+2t;PJd2  
photographed with an Oxford® retroillumination camera &14Er,K  
(Marcher Enterprises Ltd, Hereford, UK) and T-MAX® 400 tsTCZ);(  
film (Eastman Kodak). Photographs were graded separately &Sp2['a!  
by two research assistants and discrepancies were adjudicated /4 -6V d"8  
by an independent reviewer. Any discrepancies )1 !*N)$  
between the clinical grades and the photograph grades were OM7EmMa;  
resolved. Except in cases where photographs were missing, | Xk>a7X  
the photograph grades were used in the analyses. Photograph h>'Mh;+  
grades were available for 4301 (84%) for cortical V> @+&q  
cataract, 4147 (81%) for nuclear cataract and 4303 (84%) 4Q(GX.5  
for PSC cataract. Cataract status was classified according to D~JrO]mi  
the severity of the opacity in the worse eye. CrI:TB>/ "  
Assessment of risk factors Tf?|*P  
A standardized questionnaire was used to obtain information qUtlh,4)  
about education, employment and ethnic background.11 c'~6 1HA<  
Specific information was elicited on the occurrence, duration :HQQ8uQfb  
and treatment of a number of medical conditions, 5QUL-*t  
including ocular trauma, arthritis, diabetes, gout, hypertension ,O/ t6'  
and mental illness. Information about the use, dose and N3g\X  
duration of tobacco, alcohol, analgesics and steriods were KI{B<S3*Z  
collected, and a food frequency questionnaire was used to E#m|Sq  
determine current consumption of dietary sources of antioxidants e2l!L*[g  
and use of vitamin supplements. {]6Pd`-  
Data management and statistical analysis 1MnT*w   
Data were collected either by direct computer entry with a f/NfvLi(AU  
questionnaire programmed in Paradox© (Carel Corporation, %ryYa  
Ottawa, Canada) with internal consistency checks, or E1-BB  
on self-coding forms. Open-ended responses were coded at '6zD `Q  
a later time. Data that were entered on the self-coded forms L1J~D?q  
were entered into a computer with double data entry and { vOr'j@  
reconciliation of any inconsistencies. Data range and consistency yvp$s  
checks were performed on the entire data set. YA[\|I33  
SAS© version 6.1 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina) was QlCs ,bT  
employed for statistical analyses. r0 fxEYze&  
Ninety-five per cent confidence limits around the agespecific 6_wj,7  
rates were calculated according to Cochran13 to KJ;;825?  
account for the effect of the cluster sampling. Ninety-five 5:sk&0:@U  
per cent confidence limits around age-standardized rates qzt.k^'-^  
were calculated according to Breslow and Day.14 The strataspecific `8sC>)lrwu  
data were weighted according to the 1996 7uW=fkxT  
Australian Bureau of Statistics census data15 to reflect the Ods/1 KW  
cataract prevalence in the entire Victorian population. nkAS]sC  
Univariate analyses with Student’s t-tests and chi-squared vQ",rP%  
tests were first employed to evaluate risk factors for unoperated ev"f@y9Do  
cataract. Any factors with P < 0.10 were then fitted bs9X4n5  
into a backwards stepwise logistic regression model. For the j}fu|-  
Figure 1. Minimum levels of cortical (a), nuclear (b), and posterior subcapsular (c) cataract. 3yw`%$d5  
final multivariate models, P < 0.05 was considered statistically I-> BDNk  
significant. Design effect was assessed through the use gql^Inx<  
of cluster-specific models and multivariate models. The z iTE*rNJ  
design effect was assumed to be additive and an adjustment BDiN*.w5  
made in the variance by adding the variance associated with /fDXO;tN  
the design effect prior to constructing the 95% confidence .Gq]Mrim9G  
limits. =Y`e?\#`  
RESULTS G~nQR qv  
Study population VSLi{=#  
A total of 3271 (83%) of the Melbourne residents, 403 ,|G~PC8  
(90%) Melbourne nursing home residents, and 1473 (92%) 6O0CF}B*  
rural residents participated. In general, non-participants did RoYwZX~  
not differ from participants.16 The study population was wx[Y2lUh6  
representative of the Victorian population and Australia as GA+#'R  
a whole. LzGSN  
The Melbourne residents ranged in age from 40 to i8|0z I  
98 years (mean = 59) and 1511 (46%) were male. The ZXH{9hxd  
Melbourne nursing home residents ranged in age from 46 to dk>qTY+j5  
101 years (mean = 82) and 85 (21%) were men. The rural  XkRPD  
residents ranged in age from 40 to 103 years (mean = 60) h6~ H5X  
and 701 (47.5%) were men. 'gv ~M_  
Prevalence of cataract and prior cataract surgery 26B+qXEt  
As would be expected, the rate of any cataract increases 9gQ ]!Oq  
dramatically with age (Table 1). The weighted rate of any q>f|1Pf  
cataract in Victoria was 21.5% (95% CL 18.1, 24.9). L<W2a(  
Although the rates varied somewhat between the three 2`P=ekF]  
strata, they were not significantly different as the 95% confidence v4Mn@e_#c  
limits overlapped. The per cent of cataractous eyes _MxKfah'  
with best-corrected visual acuity of less than 6/12 was 12.5% `/RcE.5n\@  
(65/520) for cortical cataract, 18% for nuclear cataract |{ TVW  
(97/534) and 14.4% (27/187) for PSC cataract. Cataract /5N`E uw  
surgery also rose dramatically with age. The overall J7FzOwd1h  
weighted rate of prior cataract surgery in Victoria was |*v w(  
3.79% (95% CL 2.97, 4.60) (Table 2). qW 2'?B3<  
Risk factors for unoperated cataract n7VQi+i'  
Cases of cataract that had not been removed were classified xua E\*m  
as unoperated cataract. Risk factor analyses for unoperated RH~I/4e  
cataract were not performed with the nursing home residents AR3v,eOs  
as information about risk factor exposure was not wq:"/2p1  
available for this cohort. The following factors were assessed =O?? W8u  
in relation to unoperated cataract: age, sex, residence iCIU'yI  
(urban/rural), language spoken at home (a measure of ethnic rcUJOI  
integration), country of birth, parents’ country of birth (a ?.Lq `~T`  
measure of ethnicity), years since migration, education, use &`I7aP|  
of ophthalmic services, use of optometric services, private ):Pz sz7  
health insurance status, duration of distance glasses use, ypLt6(1j%  
glaucoma, age-related maculopathy and employment status. uWjEyxPv{  
In this cross sectional study it was not possible to assess the ^SWV!rrg  
level of visual acuity that would predict a patient’s having )R6-]TkA_  
cataract surgery, as visual acuity data prior to cataract ]S7>=S  
surgery were not available. FO{?Z%& ;  
The significant risk factors for unoperated cataract in univariate QC<O=<$Q[  
analyses were related to: whether a participant had P2 fiK  
ever seen an optometrist, seen an ophthalmologist or been kzmw1*J  
diagnosed with glaucoma; and participants’ employment EI8KKo *  
status (currently employed) and age. These significant aSt:G*a"  
factors were placed in a backwards stepwise logistic regression O&evv8 6L  
model. The factors that remained significantly related X86r`}  
to unoperated cataract were whether participants had ever ~S~4pK  
seen an ophthalmologist, seen an optometrist and been qCy SL lp0  
diagnosed with glaucoma. None of the demographic factors E_-g<Cw  
were associated with unoperated cataract in the multivariate  _j2q  
model. K;*B$2Z#k  
The per cent of participants with unoperated cataract ImsyyeY]  
who said that they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with q$kx/6=k  
Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia 79 $f AZ^   
Table 1. Prevalence of any cataracta (excluding previous cataract surgery) by age, gender and cohort Np@ RK1}  
Age group Sex Urban Rural Nursing home Weighted total hH_\C.bL  
(years) (%) (%) (%) 09J,!NN  
40–49 Male 2.56 4.04 0.00 3.00 (1.91, 4.08) sI`oz|$  
Female 2.61 1.70 0.00 2.36 (1.61, 3.10) G;AJBs>Y}  
50–59 Male 7.69 6.94 0.00 7.47 (5.80, 9.15) ]23+ d/  
Female 6.67 7.56 0.00 6.92 (5.60, 8.24) #D^( dz*  
60–69 Male 20.7 25.0 10.0 22.0 (18.1, 26.0) AZva  
Female 27.9 35.7 37.5 30.3 (26.0, 34.7) y*T@_on5  
70–79 Male 43.1 58.7 39.1 48.1 (41.2, 55.1) 5`)[FCQ  
Female 58.6 66.2 55.6 61.0 (56.0, 65.9) nU/x,W[}  
80–89 Male 74.0 89.3 92.0 79.3 (72.3, 86.3) uQ3W =  
Female 91.9 97.0 80.2 92.6 (86.4, 98.8) ;aDYw [  
90 + Male 100.0 100.0 75.0 98.8 (96.2, 100.0) zcOG[-  
Female 100.0 100.0 93.8 98.6 (97.0, 100.0) /2Bf6  
Age-standardized "@L|Z6U(  
(95% CL) Combined 19.7 (16.3, 23.1) 23.2 (16.1, 30.2) 16.5 (2.06, 30.9) 21.5 (18.1, 25.0) vu3zZMl  
aCortical > 4/16, nuclear > standard 2, posterior subcapsular > 1 mm2 dG)}H _  
their current vision was 30% (290/683), compared with 27% +kx#"L:  
(26/95) of participants with prior cataract surgery (chisquared, 4o kZ  
1 d.f. = 0.25, P = 0.62). /J!~0~F  
Outcomes of cataract surgery v,c;dlg_  
Two hundred and forty-nine eyes had undergone prior / gP"X1.  
cataract surgery. Of these 249 operated eyes, 49 (20%) were u(~(+1W  
left aphakic, 6 (2.4%) had anterior chamber intraocular p*|Ct  
lenses and 194 (78%) had posterior chamber intraocular 9G)fJr  
lenses. The rate of capsulotomy in the eyes with intact BP=<TRp .  
posterior capsules was 36% (73/202). Fifteen per cent of \N.Bx  
eyes (17/114) with a clear posterior capsule had bestcorrected =W"9 a\m  
visual acuity of less than 6/12 compared with 43% vY]7oX+  
of eyes (6/14) with opaque capsules, and 15% of eyes D:XjJMW3r  
(11/73) with prior capsulotomies (chi-squared, 2 d.f. = 7.21, 8[x{]l[  
P = 0.027). O7yIFqI=/  
The percentage of eyes with best-corrected visual acuity n8o(>?Kw  
of 6/12 or better was 96% (302/314) for eyes without y)T|1)  
cataract, 88% (1417/1609) for eyes with prevalent cataract s$xm  
and 85% (211/249) for eyes with operated cataract (chisquared, 1(qL),F;  
2 d.f. = 22.3), P < 0.001). Twenty-seven of the 5)i+x-  
operated eyes (11%) had visual acuities of less than 6/18 zZiga q"  
(moderate vision impairment) (Fig. 2). A cause of this du&9mOrr  
moderate visual impairment (but not the only cause) in four hzrS_v  
(15%) eyes was secondary to cataract surgery. Three of these BoofJm  
four eyes had undergone intracapsular cataract extraction % {A%SDh  
and the fourth eye had an opaque posterior capsule. No one t^7}j4lk  
had bilateral vision impairment as a result of their cataract 9%DLdc\z;  
surgery. -Hg,:re2  
DISCUSSION #./8inbG  
To our knowledge, this is the first paper to systematically h/7_IuD  
assess the prevalence of current cataract, previous cataract OGPrjL+  
surgery, predictors of unoperated cataract and the outcomes [~k!wipK  
of cataract surgery in a population-based sample. The Visual \ +)AQ!E  
Impairment Project is unique in that the sampling frame and {#&jW  
high response rate have ensured that the study population is .}3K9.hkr  
representative of Australians aged 40 years and over. Therefore, cL:hjr"  
these data can be used to plan age-related cataract yi,Xs|%.  
services throughout Australia. $#FA/+<&$  
We found the rate of any cataract in those over the age D "X`qF6U7  
of 40 years to be 22%. Although relatively high, this rate is x_#'6H\1ga  
significantly less than was reported in a number of previous 5/i]Jni  
studies,2,4,6 with the exception of the Casteldaccia Eye B) s%B'  
Study.5 However, it is difficult to compare rates of cataract ^Kn:T` vB  
between studies because of different methodologies and W+#Zmvo  
cataract definitions employed in the various studies, as well XVY j X  
as the different age structures of the study populations. xcQ :&q  
Other studies have used less conservative definitions of >{=~''d,w  
cataract, thus leading to higher rates of cataract as defined. $%"~.L4  
In most large epidemiologic studies of cataract, visual acuity `, )%<}  
has not been included in the definition of cataract. 6<9gVh<=w  
Therefore, the prevalence of cataract may not reflect the og|~:>FmJo  
actual need for cataract surgery in the community. gU@BEn}  
80 McCarty et al. I->4Q&3  
Table 2. Prevalence of previous cataract by age, gender and cohort `<* tp@  
Age group Gender Urban Rural Nursing home Weighted total -qJO6OM  
(years) (%) (%) (%) 8Oo16LPD  
40–49 Male 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.80 (0.00, 1.81) *w6(nG'M{  
Female 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ( W.TdhJW9  
50–59 Male 0.68 0.58 0.00 0.65 (0.13, 1.17) <@+{EK'`q  
Female 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.41 (0.00, 1.00) jU=n\o=?  
60–69 Male 2.12 7.59 0.00 3.80 (1.41, 6.19) rY]QTS">o  
Female 2.11 3.51 0.00 2.54 (1.81, 3.26) E,7b=t  
70–79 Male 8.22 9.85 8.70 8.75 (6.38, 11.1) $WG<  
Female 7.21 7.86 7.02 7.41 (5.36, 9.46) F+?g0w[ '  
80–89 Male 25.0 30.0 14.3 26.2 (17.0, 35.4) tQcn%CK  
Female 27.9 25.6 18.3 26.7 (20.2, 33.3) iKEHwm  
90 + Male 0.00 16.7 66.7 9.19 (0.00, 21.5) fi';Mb3B3  
Female 58.3 100.0 26.9 63.1 (44.4, 81.8) }vt>}%%  
Age-standardized YCo qe,5  
(95% CL) Combined 3.31 (2.70, 3.93) 4.36 (2.67, 6.06) 2.26 (0.82, 3.70) 3.79 (2.97, 4.60) |]j2T 8_=  
Figure 2. Visual acuity in eyes that had undergone cataract ^THyo hK  
surgery, n = 249. h, Presenting; j, best-corrected. aYcc2N%C  
Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia 81 T#-U\C~o  
The weighted prevalence of prior cataract surgery in the %q_b\K  
Visual Impairment Project (3.6%) was similar to the crude z 9HUI5ns  
rate in the Beaver Dam Eye Study4 (3.1%), but less than the vs(x; zpJ  
crude rate in the Blue Mountains Eye Study6 (6.0%). {Zrf>ST  
However, the age-standardized rate in the Blue Mountains ZA'Qw2fF0  
Eye Study (standardized to the age distribution of the urban n_Bi HMIU'  
Visual Impairment Project cohort) was found to be less than )P #MUC  
the Visual Impairment Project (standardized rate = 1.36%, C vWt  
95% CL 1.25, 1.47). The incidence of cataract surgery in T/ TMi&:?.  
Australia has exceeded population growth.1 This is due, ><"0GPxrx  
perhaps, to advances in surgical techniques and lens HiT j-O  
implants that have changed the risk–benefit ratio. esK0H<]  
The Global Initiative for the Elimination of Avoidable _q3|Ddm2LN  
Blindness, sponsored by the World Health Organization, =JfSg'7  
states that cataract surgical services should be provided that (v1~p3H  
‘have a high success rate in terms of visual outcome and _  e94  
improved quality of life’,17 although the ‘high success rate’ is d^Zr I\AJ  
not defined. Population- and clinic-based studies conducted <F<jx"/)  
in the United States have demonstrated marked improvement )m.U"giG++  
in visual acuity following cataract surgery.18–20 We pDM95.6   
found that 85% of eyes that had undergone cataract extraction <K  GYwLk  
had visual acuity of 6/12 or better. Previously, we have ^=7XA894  
shown that participants with prevalent cataract in this a474[?  
cohort are more likely to express dissatisfaction with their J~k'b2(p3  
current vision than participants without cataract or participants .lyK ,p  
with prior cataract surgery.21 In a national study in the T7~Vk2o%(  
United States, researchers found that the change in patients’ t$-!1jq  
ratings of their vision difficulties and satisfaction with their eG j[% pk  
vision after cataract surgery were more highly related to ;cp,d~mrf  
their change in visual functioning score than to their change ^Rc*X'Iz(!  
in visual acuity.19 Furthermore, improvement in visual function <zt124y-6  
has been shown to be associated with improvement in f&NXWo/  
overall quality of life.22 %2^wyVkq:  
A recent review found that the incidence of visually Qkb=KS%z  
significant posterior capsule opacification following eq,`T;  
cataract surgery to be greater than 25%.23 We found 36% %hCd*[Z}j  
capsulotomy in our population and that this was associated JUd Q Q  
with visual acuity similar to that of eyes with a clear 5`p>BJ+n  
capsule, but significantly better than that of eyes with an 3V%ts7:a  
opaque capsule. }) Zcw1g  
A number of studies have shown that the demand and Er@OmNT  
timing of cataract surgery vary according to visual acuity, #dDM "s  
degree of handicap and socioeconomic factors.8–10,24,25 We 6o<(,\ad [  
have also shown previously that ophthalmologists are more }va>jfy  
likely to refer a patient for cataract surgery if the patient is 5&TH\2u  
employed and less likely to refer a nursing home resident.7 JasA w7  
In the Visual Impairment Project, we did not find that any +0g L!r  
particular subgroup of the population was at greater risk of Fx )BMP  
having unoperated cataract. Universal access to health care KvXF zx|A  
in Australia may explain the fact that people without R*DQLBWc  
Medicare are more likely to delay cataract operations in the % O u'+A  
USA,8 but not having private health insurance is not associated M< /   
with unoperated cataract in Australia. CaR-Yk   
In summary, cataract is a significant public health problem OJ r~iUr  
in that one in four people in their 80s will have had cataract Uj)Wbe[)p0  
surgery. The importance of age-related cataract surgery will c3.; o  
increase further with the ageing of the population: the J?C:@Q  
number of people over age 60 years is expected to double in _$i)bJ  
the next 20 years. Cataract surgery services are well E YA=f U  
accessed by the Victorian population and the visual outcomes 8p]9A,Uq&  
of cataract surgery have been shown to be very good. oI-,6G}  
These data can be used to plan for age-related cataract 8QMib3p  
surgical services in Australia in the future as the need for &%m%b5  
cataract extractions increases. b8E7/~<z3  
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS J";4+wA7  
The Visual Impairment Project was funded in part by grants /xj`'8  
from the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, the " =6kH,  
National Health and Medical Research Council, the Ansell d,toUI  
Ophthalmology Foundation, the Dorothy Edols Estate and /36gf  
the Jack Brockhoff Foundation. Dr McCarty is the recipient F^81?F i.  
of a Wagstaff Fellowship in Ophthalmology from the Royal OY8P  
Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital. O]' 2<;  
REFERENCES )qe rA  
1. Keeffe JE, Taylor HR. Cataract surgery in Australia 1985–94. 'q?Y5@s  
Aust. N.Z. J. Ophthalmol. 1996; 24: 313–17. E^A S65%bL  
2. Sperduto RD, Hiller R. The prevalence of nuclear, cortical, fUr%@&~l^  
and posterior subcapsular lens opacities in a general population [+Fajo;0  
sample. Ophthalmology 1984; 91: 815–18. ) FNn  
3. Maraini G, Pasquini P, Sperduto RD et al. Distribution of lens uehu\umt=  
opacities in the Italian-American case–control study of agerelated f;AI4:#I  
cataract. Ophthalmology 1990; 97: 752–6. u`D _  
4. Klein BEK, Klein R, Linton KLP. Prevalence of age-related .+kg1=s  
lens opacities in a population. The Beaver Dam Eye Study. x-]:g&5T  
Ophthalmology 1992; 99: 546–52. r)#W`A1{A  
5. Guiffrè G, Giammanco R, Di Pace F, Ponte F. Casteldaccia eye zc$}4o  
study: prevalence of cataract in the adult and elderly population 3dlY_z=0  
of a Mediterranean town. Int. Ophthalmol. 1995; 18: at4JLbk  
363–71. C+g}+  
6. Mitchell P, Cumming RG, Attebo K, Panchapakesan J. * V7mM?  
Prevalence of cataract in Australia. The Blue Mountains Eye KJ:z\N8eo  
Study. Ophthalmology 1997; 104: 581–8. >I/@GX/  
7. Keeffe JE, McCarty CA, Chang WP, Steinberg EP, Taylor HR. ; 0Q" [[J  
Relative importance of VA, patient concern and patient l i)6^f#  
lifestyle on referral for cataract surgery. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Cf9{lhE8  
Sci. 1996; 37: S183. m#8(l{3|  
8. Curbow B, Legro MW, Brenner MH. The influence of patientrelated ]E$NJq|  
variables in the timing of cataract extraction. Am. J. Xdx8HB@L  
Ophthalmol. 1993; 115: 614–22. : NA(nA 3  
9. Sletteberg OH, Høvding G, Bertelsen T. Do we operate too ^ghYi|kQq  
many cataracts? The referred cataract patients’ own appraisal /]^Y\U^  
of their need for surgery. Acta Ophthalmol. Scand. 1995; 73: ge(,>xB  
77–80. kmX 9)TMVO  
10. Escarce JJ. Would eliminating differences in physician practice s .<.6t:G4  
style reduce geographic variations in cataract surgery rates? T.3{}230<  
Med. Care 1993; 31: 1106–18. 1O< 6=oH  
11. Livingston PM, Carson CA, Stanislavsky YL, Lee SE, Guest PPH;'!>s"  
CS, Taylor HR. Methods for a population-based study of eye &3Yj2 Fw  
disease: the Melbourne Visual Impairment Project. Ophthalmic zWhj >Za  
Epidemiol. 1994; 1: 139–48. /AAD Fa  
12. Taylor HR, West SK. A simple system for the clinical grading )WbWp4  
of lens opacities. Lens Res. 1988; 5: 175–81. !u@P\8M}  
82 McCarty et al. r dSL  
13. Cochran WG. Sampling Techniques. New York: John Wiley & r'j88)^  
Sons, 1977; 249–73. ""jW'%wR  
14. Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical Methods in Cancer Research. Volume Yi?bY  
II – the Design and Analysis of Cohort Studies. Lyon: International w~)tEN>  
Agency for Research on Cancer; 1987; 52–61. JJ7A` ;  
15. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 1996 Census of Population and 'fl< ac,.  
Housing. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1997. -f&vH_eK  
16. Livingston PM, Lee SE, McCarty CA, Taylor HR. A comparison F5RL+rU(h  
of participants with non-participants in a populationbased j :B/ FL  
epidemiologic study: the Melbourne Visual Impairment On}1&!{1]  
Project. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 1997; 4: 73–82. o=_7KWOA  
17. Programme for the Prevention of Blindness. Global Initiative for the 8 E\zjT!#\  
Elimination of Avoidable Blindness. Geneva: World Health :Q>e54]'&  
Organization, 1997. OU/}cu  
18. Applegate WB, Miller ST, Elam JT, Freeman JM, Wood TO, 'k[qx}  
Gettlefinger TC. Impact of cataract surgery with lens implantation lbda/Zx  
on vision and physical function in elderly patients. '*mZ/O-  
JAMA 1987; 257: 1064–6. k\ .9iI'6  
19. Steinberg EP, Tielsch JM, Schein OD et al. National Study of `6)Qi*Z  
Cataract Surgery Outcomes. Variation in 4-month postoperative NOQ^HEi  
outcomes as reflected in multiple outcome measures. iW(LD1~7  
Ophthalmology 1994; 101:1131–41. (cOe*>L;  
20. Klein BEK, Klein R, Moss SE. Change in visual acuity associated 1#6emMV.`  
with cataract surgery. The Beaver Dam Eye Study. UgGa]b[9A  
Ophthalmology 1996; 103: 1727–31. ?'6@m86d  
21. McCarty CA, Keeffe JE, Taylor HR. The need for cataract ^#<L!yo^  
surgery: projections based on lens opacity, visual acuity, and I{cH$jt<  
personal concern. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1999; 83: 62–5. (Of6Ij?  
22. Brenner MH, Curbow B, Javitt JC, Legro MW, Sommer A. ?'TK~,dG/  
Vision change and quality of life in the elderly. Response to  Fb(@i  
cataract surgery and treatment of other ocular conditions. E+O{^C=  
Arch. Ophthalmol. 1993; 111: 680–5. y|ZL < L  
23. Schaumberg DA, Dana MR, Christen WG, Glynn RJ. A Gy/w #4xj  
systematic overview of the incidence of posterior capsule VQHB}Y@^  
opacification. Ophthalmology 1998; 105: 1213–21. H9(?yI@Zr#  
24. Mordue A, Parkin DW, Baxter C, Fawcett G, Stewart M. \s&Mz;:  
Thresholds for treatment in cataract surgery. J. Public Health .@,t}:lD  
Med. 1994; 16: 393–8. <3{MS],<<  
25. Norregaard JC, Bernth-Peterson P, Alonso J et al. Variations in E)$>t}$  
indications for cataract surgery in the United States, Denmark, Njg$~30  
Canada, and Spain: results from the International Cataract Dm}eX:'{  
Surgery Outcomes Study. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1998; 82: 1107–11.
评价一下你浏览此帖子的感受

精彩

感动

搞笑

开心

愤怒

无聊

灌水

  
描述
快速回复

验证问题:
免费考博论坛网址是什么? 正确答案:freekaobo.com
按"Ctrl+Enter"直接提交