ABSTRACT
w8 ?Pb$Fe Purpose: To quantify the prevalence of cataract, the outcomes
E
fP>O of cataract surgery and the factors related to
y2z{rd unoperated cataract in Australia.
Np.no$_ Methods: Participants were recruited from the Visual
[kPD`be2# Impairment Project: a cluster, stratified sample of more than
Z{Vxr*9oO 5000 Victorians aged 40 years and over. At examination
N@k3$+ls sites interviews, clinical examinations and lens photography
zWy
,Om8P were performed. Cataract was defined in participants who
Sp 7u_Pq{ had: had previous cataract surgery, cortical cataract greater
ooTc/QEYi than 4/16, nuclear greater than Wilmer standard 2, or
! G*&4V3Mg posterior subcapsular greater than 1 mm2.
{I4% Results: The participant group comprised 3271 Melbourne
"Z;~Y=hC13 residents, 403 Melbourne nursing home residents and 1473
Kb^>X{ rural residents.The weighted rate of any cataract in Victoria
mfZ)^X was 21.5%. The overall weighted rate of prior cataract
6tOCZ
'f surgery was 3.79%. Two hundred and forty-nine eyes had
<v]z6B@9! had prior cataract surgery. Of these 249 procedures, 49
#X#8ynt (20%) were aphakic, 6 (2.4%) had anterior chamber
:%N*{uy intraocular lenses and 194 (78%) had posterior chamber
8h@q intraocular lenses.Two hundred and eleven of these operated
G;/Q>V eyes (85%) had best-corrected visual acuity of 6/12 or
yB.G=90 better, the legal requirement for a driver’s license.Twentyseven
q7|:^#{av (11%) had visual acuity of less than 6/18 (moderate
E(_KN[}S vision impairment). Complications of cataract surgery
3S5^`Ag# caused reduced vision in four of the 27 eyes (15%), or 1.9%
>W
r$Y{ of operated eyes. Three of these four eyes had undergone
y=w`w
>% intracapsular cataract extraction and the fourth eye had an
%MN.O-Lc opaque posterior capsule. No one had bilateral vision
<|a=hHPi: impairment as a result of cataract surgery. Surprisingly, no
mwIk^Sz]@ particular demographic factors (such as age, gender, rural
JT04
vm4 residence, occupation, employment status, health insurance
GzdRG^vN status, ethnicity) were related to the presence of unoperated
oCVku:. cataract.
1f
Y>>*oP Conclusions: Although the overall prevalence of cataract is
/YFa
;2 W quite high, no particular subgroup is systematically underserviced
DVh)w}v in terms of cataract surgery. Overall, the results of
(0OM"`j cataract surgery are very good, with the majority of eyes
lm$;:Roj* achieving driving vision following cataract extraction.
Yl~$V( Key words: cataract extraction, health planning, health
@7W?8 services accessibility, prevalence
L^FcS\r; INTRODUCTION
%
5z
gd> Cataract is the leading cause of blindness worldwide and, in
ubbnFE
&PD Australia, cataract extractions account for the majority of all
: @6mFTV ophthalmic procedures.1 Over the period 1985–94, the rate
-Sz_mr of cataract surgery in Australia was twice as high as would be
((<`zx expected from the growth in the elderly population.1
qTM%G-
Although there have been a number of studies reporting
%;|0 the prevalence of cataract in various populations,2–6 there is
g_aCHEFBv little information about determinants of cataract surgery in
bd==+ the population. A previous survey of Australian ophthalmologists
{C")#m-0 showed that patient concern and lifestyle, rather
sgAzL than visual acuity itself, are the primary factors for referral
Y#HI;Y^RP for cataract surgery.7 This supports prior research which has
-RMi8{ shown that visual acuity is not a strong predictor of need for
%8r/oS cataract surgery.8,9 Elsewhere, socioeconomic status has
VhEka# been shown to be related to cataract surgery rates.10
M
%`\P\A To appropriately plan health care services, information is
(9C<K< needed about the prevalence of age-related cataract in the
$,27pkwHeW community as well as the factors associated with cataract
F9flSeN surgery. The purpose of this study is to quantify the prevalence
z|N3G E(.@ of any cataract in Australia, to describe the factors
yI3kvh related to unoperated cataract in the community and to
A''pS describe the visual outcomes of cataract surgery.
$`J_:H% METHODS
Vba.uKNjk Study population
cg{AMeW Details about the study methodology for the Visual
QLKK.] Impairment Project have been published previously.11
hdma=KqZ( Briefly, cluster sampling within three strata was employed to
s:>\/[*>0c recruit subjects aged 40 years and over to participate.
5:.{oSy7n Within the Melbourne Statistical Division, nine pairs of
y1f:?L-z census collector districts were randomly selected. Fourteen
g(4b
Ba9y nursing homes within a 5 km radius of these nine test sites
,5Vt]#F5@ were randomly chosen to recruit nursing home residents.
b Bc- ^ Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology (2000) 28, 77–82
ipE]}0q Original Article
Z u*K-ep" Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia
9pKGr@ & Catherine A McCarty PhD, MPH, Mukesh B Nanjan PhD, Hugh R Taylor MD
K }$&:nao Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
4Y \wnwI n Correspondence: Dr Cathy McCarty MPH, Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, 32 Gisborne Street, East Melbourne,
qQ]]~
F Victoria 3002, Australia. Email:
cathy@cera.unimelb.edu.au ay
)/q5 78 McCarty et al.
c3%@Wj:fo Finally, four pairs of census collector districts in four rural
8jlLUG:g Victorian communities were randomly selected to recruit rural
)FN;+"IJ residents. A household census was conducted to identify
&EGqgNl eligible residents aged 40 years and over who had been a
|OO in]5 resident at that address for at least 6 months. At the time of
5K%SL1N the household census, basic information about age, sex,
g`^X#-!( country of birth, language spoken at home, education, use of
!%(h2]MQ corrective spectacles and use of eye care services was collected.
zw<p74DH Eligible residents were then invited to attend a local
m><w0k?t examination site for a more detailed interview and examination.
Rgy-OA The study protocol was approved by the Royal Victorian
9I7\D8r Eye and Ear Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee.
:AdDLpk3j Assessment of cataract
]r!>{ A standardized ophthalmic examination was performed after
k#Of]mXXz pupil dilatation with one drop of 10% phenylephrine
{gA\ph%s hydrochloride. Lens opacities were graded clinically at the
@$"J|s3M time of the examination and subsequently from photos using
<$w?/y/' the Wilmer cataract photo-grading system.12 Cortical and
<}U'V}g posterior subcapsular (PSC) opacities were assessed on
s5.AW8X=?* retroillumination and measured as the proportion (in 1/16)
(BxJryXm of pupil circumference occupied by opacity. For this analysis,
Q-Ux<# cortical cataract was defined as 4/16 or greater opacity,
[ xOzzp4 PSC cataract was defined as opacity equal to or greater than
M/?KV9Xk2 1 mm2 and nuclear cataract was defined as opacity equal to
IKtB; or greater than Wilmer standard 2,12 independent of visual
CycUeT acuity. Examples of the minimum opacities defined as cortical,
'\~$dtI$ nuclear and PSC cataract are presented in Figure 1.
*#%
9Rp2| Bilateral congenital cataracts or cataracts secondary to
_LAS~x7, intraocular inflammation or trauma were excluded from the
w{~+EolK analysis. Two cases of bilateral secondary cataract and eight
[S.ZJUns cases of bilateral congenital cataract were excluded from the
xvzr:pP analyses.
JGC=(; A Topcon® SL5 photo slit-lamp (Topcon America Corp.,
+,o0-L1D Paramus, NJ, USA) with a 0.1 mm slit beam of 9.0 mm in
dC=)^( height set to an incident angle of 30° was used for examinations.
xD&^j$Em Ektachrome® 200 ASA colour slide film (Eastman
RH}A Kodak Company, Rochester, NY, USA) was used to photograph
2^t#6XBk/ the nuclear opacities. The cortical opacities were
^qCkt1C-M photographed with an Oxford® retroillumination camera
7iHK_\t n (Marcher Enterprises Ltd, Hereford, UK) and T-MAX® 400
-(`OcGM'L film (Eastman Kodak). Photographs were graded separately
DC1'Kyk by two research assistants and discrepancies were adjudicated
?JV|dM by an independent reviewer. Any discrepancies
v+jsC`m between the clinical grades and the photograph grades were
f84:hXo6 resolved. Except in cases where photographs were missing,
ZEYgK)^ the photograph grades were used in the analyses. Photograph
9}B`uJ grades were available for 4301 (84%) for cortical
Z/^ u cataract, 4147 (81%) for nuclear cataract and 4303 (84%)
MNH1D!} for PSC cataract. Cataract status was classified according to
qQ!1t>j+H the severity of the opacity in the worse eye.
jCTAKaq Assessment of risk factors
d:G]1k;z A standardized questionnaire was used to obtain information
.^$YfTabq about education, employment and ethnic background.11
ExHKw~y9
Specific information was elicited on the occurrence, duration
+
UJuB and treatment of a number of medical conditions,
C"lJl k9g^ including ocular trauma, arthritis, diabetes, gout, hypertension
UpXz&k and mental illness. Information about the use, dose and
~2EH OO
{ duration of tobacco, alcohol, analgesics and steriods were
nA?Hxos collected, and a food frequency questionnaire was used to
fw oQ'& determine current consumption of dietary sources of antioxidants
vIvVq:6_3 and use of vitamin supplements.
3:%QB9qc]' Data management and statistical analysis
EBtLzbj Data were collected either by direct computer entry with a
T]Nu) questionnaire programmed in Paradox© (Carel Corporation,
VL[)[~^ Ottawa, Canada) with internal consistency checks, or
,3I^?5 on self-coding forms. Open-ended responses were coded at
s] /tYJYl a later time. Data that were entered on the self-coded forms
v){ .Z^_C were entered into a computer with double data entry and
zo;^m| reconciliation of any inconsistencies. Data range and consistency
C@N1ljXJT checks were performed on the entire data set.
]*O/+ SAS© version 6.1 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina) was
*/ G<!W employed for statistical analyses.
[<`SfE Ninety-five per cent confidence limits around the agespecific
( *G\g=D rates were calculated according to Cochran13 to
T^Ab!O account for the effect of the cluster sampling. Ninety-five
b'zR 9V per cent confidence limits around age-standardized rates
Y+/JsOD were calculated according to Breslow and Day.14 The strataspecific
K!D
o8| data were weighted according to the 1996
%iJ%{{f` Australian Bureau of Statistics census data15 to reflect the
x*oWa, cataract prevalence in the entire Victorian population.
7z_;t9Y Univariate analyses with Student’s t-tests and chi-squared
-
Xz?s tests were first employed to evaluate risk factors for unoperated
n(~\l#o@ cataract. Any factors with P < 0.10 were then fitted
Bs`$ i ;& into a backwards stepwise logistic regression model. For the
9Pd*z>s Figure 1. Minimum levels of cortical (a), nuclear (b), and posterior subcapsular (c) cataract.
n{*e 9Aw final multivariate models, P < 0.05 was considered statistically
I[o*RKT'" significant. Design effect was assessed through the use
3+MB5T of cluster-specific models and multivariate models. The
9ykM3 design effect was assumed to be additive and an adjustment
wHz?#MW 3L made in the variance by adding the variance associated with
33:DH} the design effect prior to constructing the 95% confidence
%u?HF4S' limits.
SEKN|YQV/t RESULTS
;??ohA"{5 Study population
lfk9+) A total of 3271 (83%) of the Melbourne residents, 403
G,&%VQ3P> (90%) Melbourne nursing home residents, and 1473 (92%)
9T2xU3UyY rural residents participated. In general, non-participants did
jm>3bd not differ from participants.16 The study population was
5,+\`!g representative of the Victorian population and Australia as
toa-Wa{ a whole.
jigs6# The Melbourne residents ranged in age from 40 to
U`R;P- 98 years (mean = 59) and 1511 (46%) were male. The
{sN"(H4$ Melbourne nursing home residents ranged in age from 46 to
q/@dR{- 101 years (mean = 82) and 85 (21%) were men. The rural
6DS43
AQs residents ranged in age from 40 to 103 years (mean = 60)
L0Vgo
<A and 701 (47.5%) were men.
jThbeY[ Prevalence of cataract and prior cataract surgery
<3
@}Lj As would be expected, the rate of any cataract increases
pD`/_-=^h dramatically with age (Table 1). The weighted rate of any
\4~AI=aw,T cataract in Victoria was 21.5% (95% CL 18.1, 24.9).
u?Hb(xZtg= Although the rates varied somewhat between the three
vgPUIxB@ strata, they were not significantly different as the 95% confidence
/J%do]PDl limits overlapped. The per cent of cataractous eyes
VZxTx0: , with best-corrected visual acuity of less than 6/12 was 12.5%
XSD%t8<LO (65/520) for cortical cataract, 18% for nuclear cataract
f'/ KMe%< (97/534) and 14.4% (27/187) for PSC cataract. Cataract
cK}Pf+r> surgery also rose dramatically with age. The overall
xEoip?O?7F weighted rate of prior cataract surgery in Victoria was
?z.Isvn 3.79% (95% CL 2.97, 4.60) (Table 2).
qe?Ggz3p. Risk factors for unoperated cataract
c>MY$-PD Cases of cataract that had not been removed were classified
E2:D(7(;l as unoperated cataract. Risk factor analyses for unoperated
gRvJ.Q {h cataract were not performed with the nursing home residents
N du7nKG as information about risk factor exposure was not
,VG9)K1K available for this cohort. The following factors were assessed
{CP o<lz in relation to unoperated cataract: age, sex, residence
N{pa)
/ (urban/rural), language spoken at home (a measure of ethnic
Yk7"XP[Y integration), country of birth, parents’ country of birth (a
'5WN,Vy8. measure of ethnicity), years since migration, education, use
wO.B~`y of ophthalmic services, use of optometric services, private
}:^X X0:FK health insurance status, duration of distance glasses use,
![Hhxu glaucoma, age-related maculopathy and employment status.
{{zua-F In this cross sectional study it was not possible to assess the
o}!&y?mp level of visual acuity that would predict a patient’s having
[; F{mN cataract surgery, as visual acuity data prior to cataract
Ltg-w\?] surgery were not available.
wy\o*P9mG) The significant risk factors for unoperated cataract in univariate
g5<ZS3tQ analyses were related to: whether a participant had
|
@q9{h7 ever seen an optometrist, seen an ophthalmologist or been
(WkTQRcN, diagnosed with glaucoma; and participants’ employment
_X?y,# status (currently employed) and age. These significant
QS%,7'EG factors were placed in a backwards stepwise logistic regression
@|]iSD&T
# model. The factors that remained significantly related
B,:23[v to unoperated cataract were whether participants had ever
\|Y{jG<cu seen an ophthalmologist, seen an optometrist and been
<EOg,"F diagnosed with glaucoma. None of the demographic factors
ew
/KZE were associated with unoperated cataract in the multivariate
V 3%Krn1' model.
a\Tr!Be, The per cent of participants with unoperated cataract
e ^-3etx who said that they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with
K"G(?<>~4c Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia 79
s%hU*^ 8 Table 1. Prevalence of any cataracta (excluding previous cataract surgery) by age, gender and cohort
+0SW ?#% Age group Sex Urban Rural Nursing home Weighted total
/1H9z`qV (years) (%) (%) (%)
,d3Q+9/ 40–49 Male 2.56 4.04 0.00 3.00 (1.91, 4.08)
m]Hb+Y=;h Female 2.61 1.70 0.00 2.36 (1.61, 3.10)
J,.j_ii`! 50–59 Male 7.69 6.94 0.00 7.47 (5.80, 9.15)
\IO$+Guh Female 6.67 7.56 0.00 6.92 (5.60, 8.24)
Cca~Cq[%*( 60–69 Male 20.7 25.0 10.0 22.0 (18.1, 26.0)
<=#lRZW[z Female 27.9 35.7 37.5 30.3 (26.0, 34.7)
m*Q[lr= 70–79 Male 43.1 58.7 39.1 48.1 (41.2, 55.1)
-ryDsq Female 58.6 66.2 55.6 61.0 (56.0, 65.9)
bEoB;] 80–89 Male 74.0 89.3 92.0 79.3 (72.3, 86.3)
\ 9[NH/.Z{ Female 91.9 97.0 80.2 92.6 (86.4, 98.8)
z"
b/osV 90 + Male 100.0 100.0 75.0 98.8 (96.2, 100.0)
V[BY/<z)A Female 100.0 100.0 93.8 98.6 (97.0, 100.0)
!N@S^JD6 Age-standardized
Gp?ToS2^d (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)
JL}hOBqfI aCortical > 4/16, nuclear > standard 2, posterior subcapsular > 1 mm2
4*@G&v?n their current vision was 30% (290/683), compared with 27%
1 2%z3/i (26/95) of participants with prior cataract surgery (chisquared,
0A#9C09 1 d.f. = 0.25, P = 0.62).
Ba"^K d` Outcomes of cataract surgery
y^EF<<\ Two hundred and forty-nine eyes had undergone prior
INN/VDsJ cataract surgery. Of these 249 operated eyes, 49 (20%) were
glOqft&>` left aphakic, 6 (2.4%) had anterior chamber intraocular
J_y<0zF** lenses and 194 (78%) had posterior chamber intraocular
_rWM] lenses. The rate of capsulotomy in the eyes with intact
:Ul'(@ posterior capsules was 36% (73/202). Fifteen per cent of
2m)kyQ eyes (17/114) with a clear posterior capsule had bestcorrected
34+)-\ xt: visual acuity of less than 6/12 compared with 43%
s&_IWala of eyes (6/14) with opaque capsules, and 15% of eyes
-6em*$k^ (11/73) with prior capsulotomies (chi-squared, 2 d.f. = 7.21,
_Gs P = 0.027).
T ?<'= The percentage of eyes with best-corrected visual acuity
eK=m0 2 of 6/12 or better was 96% (302/314) for eyes without
:)
Fp
B" cataract, 88% (1417/1609) for eyes with prevalent cataract
x]%4M\T`` and 85% (211/249) for eyes with operated cataract (chisquared,
Fb\2df{@ 2 d.f. = 22.3), P < 0.001). Twenty-seven of the
&ESR1$)'P operated eyes (11%) had visual acuities of less than 6/18
*+,Lc1|\ (moderate vision impairment) (Fig. 2). A cause of this
7Y @=x# moderate visual impairment (but not the only cause) in four
&]"_pc/>m (15%) eyes was secondary to cataract surgery. Three of these
./BP+\)lO four eyes had undergone intracapsular cataract extraction
*`pec3" and the fourth eye had an opaque posterior capsule. No one
$.3CiM}~ had bilateral vision impairment as a result of their cataract
''\cBM!
surgery.
hF=V
?\ DISCUSSION
GD6'R"tJ To our knowledge, this is the first paper to systematically
|"tV["a assess the prevalence of current cataract, previous cataract
IpaJ<~ p
surgery, predictors of unoperated cataract and the outcomes
$nD k
mKl of cataract surgery in a population-based sample. The Visual
K~hlwjrt Impairment Project is unique in that the sampling frame and
CsST-qxg high response rate have ensured that the study population is
Dk{nOvZu< representative of Australians aged 40 years and over. Therefore,
abk:_ these data can be used to plan age-related cataract
C7*Yg$`{ services throughout Australia.
u!EulAl We found the rate of any cataract in those over the age
[#@p{[ ?r of 40 years to be 22%. Although relatively high, this rate is
xzf
)_ < significantly less than was reported in a number of previous
C`1\$U~% studies,2,4,6 with the exception of the Casteldaccia Eye
Rx"VscB6z Study.5 However, it is difficult to compare rates of cataract
NN pa69U between studies because of different methodologies and
T.
Y4L cataract definitions employed in the various studies, as well
eEds-&_ as the different age structures of the study populations.
"e};?|y Other studies have used less conservative definitions of
V9 t:JY cataract, thus leading to higher rates of cataract as defined.
%KVRiX In most large epidemiologic studies of cataract, visual acuity
nv|y@!( has not been included in the definition of cataract.
W;x LuKIG Therefore, the prevalence of cataract may not reflect the
)UU6\2^ actual need for cataract surgery in the community.
KqIe8bi^G 80 McCarty et al.
5TW<1'u Table 2. Prevalence of previous cataract by age, gender and cohort
:QY 9p T Age group Gender Urban Rural Nursing home Weighted total
k`zK (years) (%) (%) (%)
K
E1@z] 40–49 Male 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.80 (0.00, 1.81)
T//+&Sk[ Female 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (
)uJ`E8>- 50–59 Male 0.68 0.58 0.00 0.65 (0.13, 1.17)
x-k/rZ Female 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.41 (0.00, 1.00)
F>{uB!!L4 60–69 Male 2.12 7.59 0.00 3.80 (1.41, 6.19)
Gi_X+os Female 2.11 3.51 0.00 2.54 (1.81, 3.26)
k
5<