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 & gY;`*<  
Purpose: To quantify the prevalence of cataract, the outcomes j:3A;r\  
of cataract surgery and the factors related to .q AQP L  
unoperated cataract in Australia. >l7eoj  
Methods: Participants were recruited from the Visual 43UJ#r F  
Impairment Project: a cluster, stratified sample of more than 6^7)GCq [  
5000 Victorians aged 40 years and over. At examination Y9z:xE  
sites interviews, clinical examinations and lens photography 6|Ba  
were performed. Cataract was defined in participants who g_3rEvf"4  
had: had previous cataract surgery, cortical cataract greater f]@[4<Ny  
than 4/16, nuclear greater than Wilmer standard 2, or O^QR;<t'  
posterior subcapsular greater than 1 mm2. =Bcux8wA#6  
Results: The participant group comprised 3271 Melbourne #o(?g-3  
residents, 403 Melbourne nursing home residents and 1473 {|8:U}<#h  
rural residents.The weighted rate of any cataract in Victoria X=S}WKu  
was 21.5%. The overall weighted rate of prior cataract }w|=c >'_}  
surgery was 3.79%. Two hundred and forty-nine eyes had &F@tmM~  
had prior cataract surgery. Of these 249 procedures, 49 KD[)O7hYC  
(20%) were aphakic, 6 (2.4%) had anterior chamber %8bFQNd  
intraocular lenses and 194 (78%) had posterior chamber >tE,8  
intraocular lenses.Two hundred and eleven of these operated JCCx 5  
eyes (85%) had best-corrected visual acuity of 6/12 or IdN%f]=/  
better, the legal requirement for a driver’s license.Twentyseven zWKrt.Dg  
(11%) had visual acuity of less than 6/18 (moderate ss |6_H =  
vision impairment). Complications of cataract surgery (_s!,QUe  
caused reduced vision in four of the 27 eyes (15%), or 1.9% Gc3PN  
of operated eyes. Three of these four eyes had undergone @n ~ND).  
intracapsular cataract extraction and the fourth eye had an ul5::  
opaque posterior capsule. No one had bilateral vision .q'FSEkMJ  
impairment as a result of cataract surgery. Surprisingly, no  K2vPj|  
particular demographic factors (such as age, gender, rural dxae2 t V  
residence, occupation, employment status, health insurance Z;dwn~Tw  
status, ethnicity) were related to the presence of unoperated |?pYJkrYO  
cataract. 5BGv^Qb_2  
Conclusions: Although the overall prevalence of cataract is /ab K/8ZQ  
quite high, no particular subgroup is systematically underserviced &`\kb2uep  
in terms of cataract surgery. Overall, the results of e-T9HM&%P  
cataract surgery are very good, with the majority of eyes r(/P||`l  
achieving driving vision following cataract extraction. pqNoL* H  
Key words: cataract extraction, health planning, health B=nx8s  
services accessibility, prevalence  (t]R#2{  
INTRODUCTION u0$5Fd&X  
Cataract is the leading cause of blindness worldwide and, in a7 '\*  
Australia, cataract extractions account for the majority of all 0^-b}  
ophthalmic procedures.1 Over the period 1985–94, the rate "p_[A  
of cataract surgery in Australia was twice as high as would be 6b1 Uj<  
expected from the growth in the elderly population.1 R}=]UOqH-  
Although there have been a number of studies reporting E rRMiT  
the prevalence of cataract in various populations,2–6 there is 0$dY;,Q.  
little information about determinants of cataract surgery in &<; nl^  
the population. A previous survey of Australian ophthalmologists 5tbiNm^X  
showed that patient concern and lifestyle, rather LnACce ?b  
than visual acuity itself, are the primary factors for referral F\$}8,9  
for cataract surgery.7 This supports prior research which has D\i8rqU/l  
shown that visual acuity is not a strong predictor of need for ,'@ISCK^  
cataract surgery.8,9 Elsewhere, socioeconomic status has DW;.R< 8  
been shown to be related to cataract surgery rates.10 %>QSeX  
To appropriately plan health care services, information is ?(XX  
needed about the prevalence of age-related cataract in the JO;` Kz_$  
community as well as the factors associated with cataract Y{\2wU!Isn  
surgery. The purpose of this study is to quantify the prevalence jl|X$w  
of any cataract in Australia, to describe the factors P24    
related to unoperated cataract in the community and to l'X?S(fiV  
describe the visual outcomes of cataract surgery. L?pvz}  
METHODS [_z2z6  
Study population ?_`P;}4#  
Details about the study methodology for the Visual vmQ DcCw  
Impairment Project have been published previously.11 _O'rZ5}&  
Briefly, cluster sampling within three strata was employed to pl? J<48  
recruit subjects aged 40 years and over to participate. D_`)T;<Sp  
Within the Melbourne Statistical Division, nine pairs of @ F"ShT0  
census collector districts were randomly selected. Fourteen "gVH;<&]  
nursing homes within a 5 km radius of these nine test sites U8@*I>vA  
were randomly chosen to recruit nursing home residents. 5nlyb,"^g  
Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology (2000) 28, 77–82 +=F);;!  
Original Article E~U|v'GCd  
Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia Ib<+m%Ac  
Catherine A McCarty PhD, MPH, Mukesh B Nanjan PhD, Hugh R Taylor MD E;*TRr><  
Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia F;l<>|vG  
n Correspondence: Dr Cathy McCarty MPH, Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, 32 Gisborne Street, East Melbourne, ,}$x'8v  
Victoria 3002, Australia. Email: cathy@cera.unimelb.edu.au Q14;G<l-  
78 McCarty et al. ;C@^wI  
Finally, four pairs of census collector districts in four rural 0hr)tYW,G  
Victorian communities were randomly selected to recruit rural "h|0]y^2  
residents. A household census was conducted to identify |Szr=[  
eligible residents aged 40 years and over who had been a |0Ug~jKU  
resident at that address for at least 6 months. At the time of L r]Hvd   
the household census, basic information about age, sex, WUQh[A41  
country of birth, language spoken at home, education, use of @g` ,'r  
corrective spectacles and use of eye care services was collected. QRix_2+  
Eligible residents were then invited to attend a local X"r$,~  
examination site for a more detailed interview and examination. x" =q+sA  
The study protocol was approved by the Royal Victorian <J uJ`t  
Eye and Ear Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee. YuuG:Kk  
Assessment of cataract W- B[_  
A standardized ophthalmic examination was performed after DFH6.0UW  
pupil dilatation with one drop of 10% phenylephrine WM7/|.HQ  
hydrochloride. Lens opacities were graded clinically at the ooxzM `  
time of the examination and subsequently from photos using _P m}]Y:_  
the Wilmer cataract photo-grading system.12 Cortical and pIjVJ9+j  
posterior subcapsular (PSC) opacities were assessed on 0(6`dr_  
retroillumination and measured as the proportion (in 1/16) - C ]a2  
of pupil circumference occupied by opacity. For this analysis, b,sc  
cortical cataract was defined as 4/16 or greater opacity, -w0>4JDs  
PSC cataract was defined as opacity equal to or greater than I=-;*3g6  
1 mm2 and nuclear cataract was defined as opacity equal to (KU@hp-\  
or greater than Wilmer standard 2,12 independent of visual |a\TUzq  
acuity. Examples of the minimum opacities defined as cortical, a VMFjkW  
nuclear and PSC cataract are presented in Figure 1. &1Iy9&y  
Bilateral congenital cataracts or cataracts secondary to eF\C?4  
intraocular inflammation or trauma were excluded from the U /Fomu  
analysis. Two cases of bilateral secondary cataract and eight qa?y lR"kA  
cases of bilateral congenital cataract were excluded from the "xI[4~'`:  
analyses. e@By@r&nql  
A Topcon® SL5 photo slit-lamp (Topcon America Corp., G-<~I#k  
Paramus, NJ, USA) with a 0.1 mm slit beam of 9.0 mm in {HDlv[O%  
height set to an incident angle of 30° was used for examinations. Puh&F< B  
Ektachrome® 200 ASA colour slide film (Eastman K@hUif|([  
Kodak Company, Rochester, NY, USA) was used to photograph K@lV P!z  
the nuclear opacities. The cortical opacities were \]El%j4  
photographed with an Oxford® retroillumination camera g&wQ^  
(Marcher Enterprises Ltd, Hereford, UK) and T-MAX® 400 R MXj)~4.  
film (Eastman Kodak). Photographs were graded separately Y6a|\ K|  
by two research assistants and discrepancies were adjudicated kRPg^Fw"Vw  
by an independent reviewer. Any discrepancies }lVUa{ubf  
between the clinical grades and the photograph grades were g7-K62bb  
resolved. Except in cases where photographs were missing, :P~Owz  
the photograph grades were used in the analyses. Photograph ;;5i'h~?]J  
grades were available for 4301 (84%) for cortical A\Gw+l<h,  
cataract, 4147 (81%) for nuclear cataract and 4303 (84%) N%+M+zEJ  
for PSC cataract. Cataract status was classified according to R#M).2::  
the severity of the opacity in the worse eye. WTx;,TNG  
Assessment of risk factors r.5F^   
A standardized questionnaire was used to obtain information rg\w!L(  
about education, employment and ethnic background.11 ,d#4Ib  
Specific information was elicited on the occurrence, duration %s>E@[s  
and treatment of a number of medical conditions, +L6d $+  
including ocular trauma, arthritis, diabetes, gout, hypertension TF>F7v(,45  
and mental illness. Information about the use, dose and U^D7T|P$V  
duration of tobacco, alcohol, analgesics and steriods were ;nE}%lT  
collected, and a food frequency questionnaire was used to }: e9\r)  
determine current consumption of dietary sources of antioxidants 3Daq5(fLP  
and use of vitamin supplements. >B0S5:S$W  
Data management and statistical analysis 26A#X  
Data were collected either by direct computer entry with a "5Mo%cUp  
questionnaire programmed in Paradox© (Carel Corporation, yyc&'J  
Ottawa, Canada) with internal consistency checks, or =[kv@ p  
on self-coding forms. Open-ended responses were coded at G`jhzG  
a later time. Data that were entered on the self-coded forms ^_uzr}LE`  
were entered into a computer with double data entry and ]CjODa  
reconciliation of any inconsistencies. Data range and consistency #~b9H05D  
checks were performed on the entire data set. l}x{.q7U l  
SAS© version 6.1 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina) was kVY@q&p  
employed for statistical analyses. 0W)_5f&  
Ninety-five per cent confidence limits around the agespecific N@}U;x}  
rates were calculated according to Cochran13 to /.r($S g^  
account for the effect of the cluster sampling. Ninety-five 9pXFC9  
per cent confidence limits around age-standardized rates i!NGX  
were calculated according to Breslow and Day.14 The strataspecific L@wnzt  
data were weighted according to the 1996 !s$fqn 6  
Australian Bureau of Statistics census data15 to reflect the T(6S~; ,Z  
cataract prevalence in the entire Victorian population. Nn$$yUkMX  
Univariate analyses with Student’s t-tests and chi-squared f] Vz!hM~  
tests were first employed to evaluate risk factors for unoperated _R]h]<TQ  
cataract. Any factors with P < 0.10 were then fitted ;.Kzc3yz}  
into a backwards stepwise logistic regression model. For the NoMC* ",b>  
Figure 1. Minimum levels of cortical (a), nuclear (b), and posterior subcapsular (c) cataract. ,#crtX  
final multivariate models, P < 0.05 was considered statistically 9} vWTt0  
significant. Design effect was assessed through the use ]n{2cPx5d  
of cluster-specific models and multivariate models. The , Le_PJY)  
design effect was assumed to be additive and an adjustment L@/+u+j0  
made in the variance by adding the variance associated with ! `SR$dnE  
the design effect prior to constructing the 95% confidence X@arUs 7  
limits. eu# ||  
RESULTS T/H*Bo *=5  
Study population \1tce`+  
A total of 3271 (83%) of the Melbourne residents, 403 :7R\"@V4  
(90%) Melbourne nursing home residents, and 1473 (92%) ?f%@8%px  
rural residents participated. In general, non-participants did b c+' n  
not differ from participants.16 The study population was lB-Njr  
representative of the Victorian population and Australia as L9x,G!  
a whole. *@O;IiSE  
The Melbourne residents ranged in age from 40 to zR e0z2  
98 years (mean = 59) and 1511 (46%) were male. The 7|{QAv  
Melbourne nursing home residents ranged in age from 46 to C}M0KDF  
101 years (mean = 82) and 85 (21%) were men. The rural =14pEe  
residents ranged in age from 40 to 103 years (mean = 60) 77)C`]0(  
and 701 (47.5%) were men. $Q?UyEi  
Prevalence of cataract and prior cataract surgery Q 5Ln'La$  
As would be expected, the rate of any cataract increases F.JE$)B2EX  
dramatically with age (Table 1). The weighted rate of any _Wgg=A"G  
cataract in Victoria was 21.5% (95% CL 18.1, 24.9). tf>?;  
Although the rates varied somewhat between the three C<{k[!N%zm  
strata, they were not significantly different as the 95% confidence P*\.dAi  
limits overlapped. The per cent of cataractous eyes Zu5`-[mw  
with best-corrected visual acuity of less than 6/12 was 12.5% IuRKj8J)o  
(65/520) for cortical cataract, 18% for nuclear cataract 6}[W%S]8  
(97/534) and 14.4% (27/187) for PSC cataract. Cataract 'GAjx{gM  
surgery also rose dramatically with age. The overall [^aow-4z  
weighted rate of prior cataract surgery in Victoria was  ~UXW  
3.79% (95% CL 2.97, 4.60) (Table 2). c\n\gQ:LQ  
Risk factors for unoperated cataract e5MX5 T ^  
Cases of cataract that had not been removed were classified Zpg$:Rr  
as unoperated cataract. Risk factor analyses for unoperated y6;A4p>  
cataract were not performed with the nursing home residents %|4Nmf$:Og  
as information about risk factor exposure was not {]`O$S  
available for this cohort. The following factors were assessed NCBS=L:  
in relation to unoperated cataract: age, sex, residence @ 3FTf"#Y  
(urban/rural), language spoken at home (a measure of ethnic 7n {uxE#U)  
integration), country of birth, parents’ country of birth (a $:SHZe  
measure of ethnicity), years since migration, education, use tZwZZ0]Z  
of ophthalmic services, use of optometric services, private LC/6'4}_  
health insurance status, duration of distance glasses use, 0zetOlFbO  
glaucoma, age-related maculopathy and employment status. _z~|*7@  
In this cross sectional study it was not possible to assess the ~`(#sjr6KR  
level of visual acuity that would predict a patient’s having c V=h 8F  
cataract surgery, as visual acuity data prior to cataract an =8['X  
surgery were not available. K'Wg_ihA  
The significant risk factors for unoperated cataract in univariate g&) XaF[!  
analyses were related to: whether a participant had W/L~&.'  
ever seen an optometrist, seen an ophthalmologist or been D!+d]A[r  
diagnosed with glaucoma; and participants’ employment ;i@,TU  
status (currently employed) and age. These significant ZXh6Se4o  
factors were placed in a backwards stepwise logistic regression p~6/  
model. The factors that remained significantly related t3 2 FNg  
to unoperated cataract were whether participants had ever Gk g)\ 3  
seen an ophthalmologist, seen an optometrist and been |gg 6|,Bt4  
diagnosed with glaucoma. None of the demographic factors HM /2/ /  
were associated with unoperated cataract in the multivariate 1Ue )&RW  
model. }4b 4<Sm_h  
The per cent of participants with unoperated cataract Q$^oIFb  
who said that they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with b*&AIiT  
Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia 79 6 GqR]KD  
Table 1. Prevalence of any cataracta (excluding previous cataract surgery) by age, gender and cohort " N>~]  
Age group Sex Urban Rural Nursing home Weighted total 3copJS  
(years) (%) (%) (%) f~ kz=R=  
40–49 Male 2.56 4.04 0.00 3.00 (1.91, 4.08) la+RK  
Female 2.61 1.70 0.00 2.36 (1.61, 3.10) Au~l O  
50–59 Male 7.69 6.94 0.00 7.47 (5.80, 9.15) ammlUWl  
Female 6.67 7.56 0.00 6.92 (5.60, 8.24) N@6+DHt  
60–69 Male 20.7 25.0 10.0 22.0 (18.1, 26.0) @)k/t>r(  
Female 27.9 35.7 37.5 30.3 (26.0, 34.7) Is57)(^.-  
70–79 Male 43.1 58.7 39.1 48.1 (41.2, 55.1) 0vR gmn  
Female 58.6 66.2 55.6 61.0 (56.0, 65.9) "sh*,K5x|  
80–89 Male 74.0 89.3 92.0 79.3 (72.3, 86.3) imw,Nb  
Female 91.9 97.0 80.2 92.6 (86.4, 98.8) HueGARS  
90 + Male 100.0 100.0 75.0 98.8 (96.2, 100.0) n<q1itjD  
Female 100.0 100.0 93.8 98.6 (97.0, 100.0) b?i5C4=K  
Age-standardized +)$oy]  
(95% CL) Combined 19.7 (16.3, 23.1) 23.2 (16.1, 30.2) 16.5 (2.06, 30.9) 21.5 (18.1, 25.0) F/ p/&9  
aCortical > 4/16, nuclear > standard 2, posterior subcapsular > 1 mm2 BPO)<bx_  
their current vision was 30% (290/683), compared with 27% lEAf\T7  
(26/95) of participants with prior cataract surgery (chisquared, P! cfe@;<4  
1 d.f. = 0.25, P = 0.62). KEfN!6  
Outcomes of cataract surgery =)b!M^=X-a  
Two hundred and forty-nine eyes had undergone prior QrBb! .r  
cataract surgery. Of these 249 operated eyes, 49 (20%) were <8)cr0~zy>  
left aphakic, 6 (2.4%) had anterior chamber intraocular At<D36,^"  
lenses and 194 (78%) had posterior chamber intraocular ^k J>4  
lenses. The rate of capsulotomy in the eyes with intact &ci;0P#Q  
posterior capsules was 36% (73/202). Fifteen per cent of G]v BI=  
eyes (17/114) with a clear posterior capsule had bestcorrected ]C'^&:&<  
visual acuity of less than 6/12 compared with 43% &c[ISc>N{  
of eyes (6/14) with opaque capsules, and 15% of eyes 7m$EZTw?  
(11/73) with prior capsulotomies (chi-squared, 2 d.f. = 7.21, )WNw0cV}J>  
P = 0.027). 1R.|j_HYy  
The percentage of eyes with best-corrected visual acuity  LA]UIM@  
of 6/12 or better was 96% (302/314) for eyes without ^V}c8 P|  
cataract, 88% (1417/1609) for eyes with prevalent cataract pJdR`A-k|  
and 85% (211/249) for eyes with operated cataract (chisquared, gCV+amP  
2 d.f. = 22.3), P < 0.001). Twenty-seven of the N T>[ 2<  
operated eyes (11%) had visual acuities of less than 6/18 kk>z,A4 h_  
(moderate vision impairment) (Fig. 2). A cause of this k*4!rWr0r&  
moderate visual impairment (but not the only cause) in four z[Ah9tM%  
(15%) eyes was secondary to cataract surgery. Three of these 8|L;y[v  
four eyes had undergone intracapsular cataract extraction "l 8YD&q  
and the fourth eye had an opaque posterior capsule. No one "IHFme@^  
had bilateral vision impairment as a result of their cataract }Y"vUl_I2  
surgery. Hp>_:2O8s  
DISCUSSION }U'VVPh _  
To our knowledge, this is the first paper to systematically hnimd~E52k  
assess the prevalence of current cataract, previous cataract 4L bll%[9  
surgery, predictors of unoperated cataract and the outcomes od)ssL&E~  
of cataract surgery in a population-based sample. The Visual F'-,Ksn  
Impairment Project is unique in that the sampling frame and 704_ehrlE  
high response rate have ensured that the study population is .?`8B9w  
representative of Australians aged 40 years and over. Therefore, :6:,s#av  
these data can be used to plan age-related cataract Wj BH2v  
services throughout Australia. G0A\"2U  
We found the rate of any cataract in those over the age Jcy+(7lE)  
of 40 years to be 22%. Although relatively high, this rate is m3~_uc/+D  
significantly less than was reported in a number of previous }_BNi;H  
studies,2,4,6 with the exception of the Casteldaccia Eye 2bOl`{x  
Study.5 However, it is difficult to compare rates of cataract z=TO G P(  
between studies because of different methodologies and "ql$Rz8  
cataract definitions employed in the various studies, as well BRa9j:_b  
as the different age structures of the study populations. S5kD|kJ  
Other studies have used less conservative definitions of 8|(],NyEJ  
cataract, thus leading to higher rates of cataract as defined. :p%#U$S4  
In most large epidemiologic studies of cataract, visual acuity W^7yh&@lU  
has not been included in the definition of cataract. - ~4na{6x  
Therefore, the prevalence of cataract may not reflect the ~{$c|  
actual need for cataract surgery in the community. t,n2N13  
80 McCarty et al. {V pk o  
Table 2. Prevalence of previous cataract by age, gender and cohort /M JI^\CA  
Age group Gender Urban Rural Nursing home Weighted total MsZx 0]  
(years) (%) (%) (%) S.{   
40–49 Male 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.80 (0.00, 1.81) lMH~J8U3  
Female 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ( }'?qUy3x  
50–59 Male 0.68 0.58 0.00 0.65 (0.13, 1.17) V;W{pd-I  
Female 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.41 (0.00, 1.00) <5^m`F5  
60–69 Male 2.12 7.59 0.00 3.80 (1.41, 6.19) E[7E%^:Mg  
Female 2.11 3.51 0.00 2.54 (1.81, 3.26) ( et W4p  
70–79 Male 8.22 9.85 8.70 8.75 (6.38, 11.1) mP=[h |a$r  
Female 7.21 7.86 7.02 7.41 (5.36, 9.46) V1,/qd_  
80–89 Male 25.0 30.0 14.3 26.2 (17.0, 35.4) & Zn`2%  
Female 27.9 25.6 18.3 26.7 (20.2, 33.3) g ?xD*3 <  
90 + Male 0.00 16.7 66.7 9.19 (0.00, 21.5) {F2Rv  
Female 58.3 100.0 26.9 63.1 (44.4, 81.8)  &AOGg\  
Age-standardized ,Tu.cg  
(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) #0vda'q=j  
Figure 2. Visual acuity in eyes that had undergone cataract E#_2t)20  
surgery, n = 249. h, Presenting; j, best-corrected. 4'=Q:o*w`  
Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia 81 6^t#sEf f]  
The weighted prevalence of prior cataract surgery in the O_7}H)  
Visual Impairment Project (3.6%) was similar to the crude $,J0) ~  
rate in the Beaver Dam Eye Study4 (3.1%), but less than the N$=9R  
crude rate in the Blue Mountains Eye Study6 (6.0%). j7MUA#6$  
However, the age-standardized rate in the Blue Mountains H la?\  
Eye Study (standardized to the age distribution of the urban 7 Mq{Py1  
Visual Impairment Project cohort) was found to be less than mI!iSVqr  
the Visual Impairment Project (standardized rate = 1.36%, l^}u S|c(  
95% CL 1.25, 1.47). The incidence of cataract surgery in !yPy@eP~  
Australia has exceeded population growth.1 This is due, l"(PP3  
perhaps, to advances in surgical techniques and lens Sir1>YEm  
implants that have changed the risk–benefit ratio. n@ SUu7o  
The Global Initiative for the Elimination of Avoidable W4& 8  
Blindness, sponsored by the World Health Organization, ;Z"MO@9:  
states that cataract surgical services should be provided that -3m IdZ  
‘have a high success rate in terms of visual outcome and 7Y[ q) lv  
improved quality of life’,17 although the ‘high success rate’ is 3vcyes-U  
not defined. Population- and clinic-based studies conducted P7b"(G%  
in the United States have demonstrated marked improvement m3Wc};yE*Q  
in visual acuity following cataract surgery.18–20 We $*G3'G2'iS  
found that 85% of eyes that had undergone cataract extraction /KWdI P#  
had visual acuity of 6/12 or better. Previously, we have <uv `)Q9  
shown that participants with prevalent cataract in this 1t^y?<)  
cohort are more likely to express dissatisfaction with their \ t1#5  
current vision than participants without cataract or participants G-2~$ u  
with prior cataract surgery.21 In a national study in the XWAIW= .  
United States, researchers found that the change in patients’ m!G(vhA,_w  
ratings of their vision difficulties and satisfaction with their v5L+B`~  
vision after cataract surgery were more highly related to G gA:;f46  
their change in visual functioning score than to their change 8tR6.09'  
in visual acuity.19 Furthermore, improvement in visual function rhQ+ylt8I  
has been shown to be associated with improvement in PvV\b<Pe+  
overall quality of life.22 QxLrpM"O  
A recent review found that the incidence of visually 9) ]`l e  
significant posterior capsule opacification following Mn/  
cataract surgery to be greater than 25%.23 We found 36% S+[,\>pY  
capsulotomy in our population and that this was associated [dP<A ?s  
with visual acuity similar to that of eyes with a clear O4f9n  
capsule, but significantly better than that of eyes with an r+[g.`  
opaque capsule. iUh7eR9  
A number of studies have shown that the demand and y'8T=PqY[t  
timing of cataract surgery vary according to visual acuity, -u%o);B  
degree of handicap and socioeconomic factors.8–10,24,25 We Z"Hq{?l9  
have also shown previously that ophthalmologists are more p+b9D  
likely to refer a patient for cataract surgery if the patient is  E JC}"%h  
employed and less likely to refer a nursing home resident.7 DL~! ^fx  
In the Visual Impairment Project, we did not find that any W%ix|R^2]  
particular subgroup of the population was at greater risk of Q$.CtECo  
having unoperated cataract. Universal access to health care $aTo9{M^  
in Australia may explain the fact that people without 4%nK0FAj  
Medicare are more likely to delay cataract operations in the hOLlZP+  
USA,8 but not having private health insurance is not associated : c iwh  
with unoperated cataract in Australia. iWW!'u$+I`  
In summary, cataract is a significant public health problem Lp$&eROFVs  
in that one in four people in their 80s will have had cataract md{1Jn"  
surgery. The importance of age-related cataract surgery will ABtv|0K  
increase further with the ageing of the population: the <3k9 y^0  
number of people over age 60 years is expected to double in SV2\vby}C  
the next 20 years. Cataract surgery services are well MGKSaP;x  
accessed by the Victorian population and the visual outcomes { zalB" i  
of cataract surgery have been shown to be very good. x*^)B~7}  
These data can be used to plan for age-related cataract $*0XWrE  
surgical services in Australia in the future as the need for ?y* yl  
cataract extractions increases. U3>ES"N  
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 8`b_,(\N  
The Visual Impairment Project was funded in part by grants `@ Ont+  
from the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, the ~m7?:(/lb  
National Health and Medical Research Council, the Ansell a,*|*Cv  
Ophthalmology Foundation, the Dorothy Edols Estate and l(tMo7iPa  
the Jack Brockhoff Foundation. Dr McCarty is the recipient 5@Xy) z  
of a Wagstaff Fellowship in Ophthalmology from the Royal l) )Cvre+  
Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital. g>f_'7F&  
REFERENCES M059"X="  
1. Keeffe JE, Taylor HR. Cataract surgery in Australia 1985–94. +u7nx  
Aust. N.Z. J. Ophthalmol. 1996; 24: 313–17. DVyxe}  
2. Sperduto RD, Hiller R. The prevalence of nuclear, cortical, f'M7x6W  
and posterior subcapsular lens opacities in a general population @z.HyQ_v  
sample. Ophthalmology 1984; 91: 815–18. a: OuDjFp  
3. Maraini G, Pasquini P, Sperduto RD et al. Distribution of lens Nf{tC9l  
opacities in the Italian-American case–control study of agerelated o{ \r1<D  
cataract. Ophthalmology 1990; 97: 752–6. L/J)OJe\  
4. Klein BEK, Klein R, Linton KLP. Prevalence of age-related >9]i#So^  
lens opacities in a population. The Beaver Dam Eye Study. L{i|OK^e  
Ophthalmology 1992; 99: 546–52. :E9@9>3S  
5. Guiffrè G, Giammanco R, Di Pace F, Ponte F. Casteldaccia eye z2A1h! Me  
study: prevalence of cataract in the adult and elderly population lMBXD?,,J  
of a Mediterranean town. Int. Ophthalmol. 1995; 18: olf7L%  
363–71. Jq?"?d|:  
6. Mitchell P, Cumming RG, Attebo K, Panchapakesan J. 1{X ;&y  
Prevalence of cataract in Australia. The Blue Mountains Eye $5/lU }To  
Study. Ophthalmology 1997; 104: 581–8. V2|XcR  
7. Keeffe JE, McCarty CA, Chang WP, Steinberg EP, Taylor HR. ;v1&Rs  
Relative importance of VA, patient concern and patient R~DZY{u+/$  
lifestyle on referral for cataract surgery. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. rYMHc@a9(  
Sci. 1996; 37: S183. tO ^KCnL  
8. Curbow B, Legro MW, Brenner MH. The influence of patientrelated v= I 'rx  
variables in the timing of cataract extraction. Am. J. xT$9M"  
Ophthalmol. 1993; 115: 614–22. %7~~*_G  
9. Sletteberg OH, Høvding G, Bertelsen T. Do we operate too RK`C31Ws  
many cataracts? The referred cataract patients’ own appraisal KoNJ;YiKtN  
of their need for surgery. Acta Ophthalmol. Scand. 1995; 73: +8 AGs,  
77–80. ^/kn#1H 7&  
10. Escarce JJ. Would eliminating differences in physician practice B@W`AD1^{  
style reduce geographic variations in cataract surgery rates? HsGyNkr?r  
Med. Care 1993; 31: 1106–18. f6h!wx  
11. Livingston PM, Carson CA, Stanislavsky YL, Lee SE, Guest (E*eq-8  
CS, Taylor HR. Methods for a population-based study of eye $*`=sV!r  
disease: the Melbourne Visual Impairment Project. Ophthalmic SGREpOlJ+  
Epidemiol. 1994; 1: 139–48. 26,!HmtC  
12. Taylor HR, West SK. A simple system for the clinical grading dt(#|8i%  
of lens opacities. Lens Res. 1988; 5: 175–81. 5@6%/='I q  
82 McCarty et al. }0P5~]S<5A  
13. Cochran WG. Sampling Techniques. New York: John Wiley & F`$V H^%V  
Sons, 1977; 249–73. ^$7Lmd.qI  
14. Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical Methods in Cancer Research. Volume L"akV,w4p  
II – the Design and Analysis of Cohort Studies. Lyon: International pk*c c h#  
Agency for Research on Cancer; 1987; 52–61. Q}N.DM@d3  
15. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 1996 Census of Population and w >:~Ev]  
Housing. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1997. S&A, Q'  
16. Livingston PM, Lee SE, McCarty CA, Taylor HR. A comparison v:MJF*/  
of participants with non-participants in a populationbased ^;b$`*M1  
epidemiologic study: the Melbourne Visual Impairment  Sxrbhnx  
Project. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 1997; 4: 73–82. ]}_@!F)  
17. Programme for the Prevention of Blindness. Global Initiative for the o!`.LL%  
Elimination of Avoidable Blindness. Geneva: World Health Lzzf`jN]  
Organization, 1997. 7T]}<aK<c[  
18. Applegate WB, Miller ST, Elam JT, Freeman JM, Wood TO, 9OeY59 :  
Gettlefinger TC. Impact of cataract surgery with lens implantation e~C^*wL  
on vision and physical function in elderly patients. :" 9 :J  
JAMA 1987; 257: 1064–6. 36154*q  
19. Steinberg EP, Tielsch JM, Schein OD et al. National Study of N@$g"w  
Cataract Surgery Outcomes. Variation in 4-month postoperative t{\FV@R  
outcomes as reflected in multiple outcome measures. #%4 -zNS  
Ophthalmology 1994; 101:1131–41. G2]/g  
20. Klein BEK, Klein R, Moss SE. Change in visual acuity associated .]+oE$,!  
with cataract surgery. The Beaver Dam Eye Study. YN1P9j#0d  
Ophthalmology 1996; 103: 1727–31. x | =  
21. McCarty CA, Keeffe JE, Taylor HR. The need for cataract w /$4 Rv+S  
surgery: projections based on lens opacity, visual acuity, and 6b9 oSY-8  
personal concern. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1999; 83: 62–5. 6Y^UC2TBs  
22. Brenner MH, Curbow B, Javitt JC, Legro MW, Sommer A. *ip2|2G$  
Vision change and quality of life in the elderly. Response to &n>\ +Q   
cataract surgery and treatment of other ocular conditions. =W(mZ#*vdY  
Arch. Ophthalmol. 1993; 111: 680–5. 9Xb,Swo~  
23. Schaumberg DA, Dana MR, Christen WG, Glynn RJ. A gTE/g'3  
systematic overview of the incidence of posterior capsule +H5= zf2  
opacification. Ophthalmology 1998; 105: 1213–21. lwEJ)Bv  
24. Mordue A, Parkin DW, Baxter C, Fawcett G, Stewart M. T/DKT1P-  
Thresholds for treatment in cataract surgery. J. Public Health h }&WBN  
Med. 1994; 16: 393–8. .4c*  _$  
25. Norregaard JC, Bernth-Peterson P, Alonso J et al. Variations in }D_h*9  
indications for cataract surgery in the United States, Denmark, w] b3,b  
Canada, and Spain: results from the International Cataract :<ye:P1s  
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:
5+2=? 正确答案:7
按"Ctrl+Enter"直接提交