ABSTRACT
e&zZr]vs]l Purpose: To quantify the prevalence of cataract, the outcomes
qc_c& of cataract surgery and the factors related to
p9k'.H^:_ unoperated cataract in Australia.
BtS#I[-p_ Methods: Participants were recruited from the Visual
6m_
fEkS[ Impairment Project: a cluster, stratified sample of more than
Dbt"}#uit; 5000 Victorians aged 40 years and over. At examination
OnE#8*8
sites interviews, clinical examinations and lens photography
r9<OB`)3+ were performed. Cataract was defined in participants who
fB+4mEG@ had: had previous cataract surgery, cortical cataract greater
Q@gmtAp than 4/16, nuclear greater than Wilmer standard 2, or
$eUI.j(HU posterior subcapsular greater than 1 mm2.
"w.gP8` Results: The participant group comprised 3271 Melbourne
]cvP ! residents, 403 Melbourne nursing home residents and 1473
nen( rural residents.The weighted rate of any cataract in Victoria
mOG;[CB was 21.5%. The overall weighted rate of prior cataract
$'#hCs surgery was 3.79%. Two hundred and forty-nine eyes had
0Z9>%\km_ had prior cataract surgery. Of these 249 procedures, 49
gE$D#PZa (20%) were aphakic, 6 (2.4%) had anterior chamber
c:(Xkzj intraocular lenses and 194 (78%) had posterior chamber
H/"$#8-/ intraocular lenses.Two hundred and eleven of these operated
, TL
8` eyes (85%) had best-corrected visual acuity of 6/12 or
.}
al s better, the legal requirement for a driver’s license.Twentyseven
jd]Om
r! (11%) had visual acuity of less than 6/18 (moderate
~JhH ,E vision impairment). Complications of cataract surgery
6v(?Lr`D caused reduced vision in four of the 27 eyes (15%), or 1.9%
a=n
*}. of operated eyes. Three of these four eyes had undergone
%0 cFs' intracapsular cataract extraction and the fourth eye had an
%
NSb8@ opaque posterior capsule. No one had bilateral vision
oPP`)b$x impairment as a result of cataract surgery. Surprisingly, no
!R@v\Eu particular demographic factors (such as age, gender, rural
G)~/$EF,_ residence, occupation, employment status, health insurance
(lPiv+'n status, ethnicity) were related to the presence of unoperated
JmlMfMpXMs cataract.
5dwC~vn}c Conclusions: Although the overall prevalence of cataract is
.8[*`%K> quite high, no particular subgroup is systematically underserviced
C8dC_9 in terms of cataract surgery. Overall, the results of
,j3Y
vn W cataract surgery are very good, with the majority of eyes
8NP|>uaj achieving driving vision following cataract extraction.
Q`= ,&;T> Key words: cataract extraction, health planning, health
!q]@/<= services accessibility, prevalence
3`
,u^ w INTRODUCTION
J
ZH~ { Cataract is the leading cause of blindness worldwide and, in
/i:c!
l9 Australia, cataract extractions account for the majority of all
M%{
,?a0V ophthalmic procedures.1 Over the period 1985–94, the rate
Go;fQ yG of cataract surgery in Australia was twice as high as would be
Cpg>5N~;L expected from the growth in the elderly population.1
#/"?.Z;SSH Although there have been a number of studies reporting
r2b_$ the prevalence of cataract in various populations,2–6 there is
gXy'@! little information about determinants of cataract surgery in
,M?K3lG\g[ the population. A previous survey of Australian ophthalmologists
p)&Yr showed that patient concern and lifestyle, rather
*
'l|ws than visual acuity itself, are the primary factors for referral
bz'#YM for cataract surgery.7 This supports prior research which has
] Hiw+5n shown that visual acuity is not a strong predictor of need for
eVRPjVzQ'Q cataract surgery.8,9 Elsewhere, socioeconomic status has
,SV34+( been shown to be related to cataract surgery rates.10
qT153dNA& To appropriately plan health care services, information is
;ElwF&"!X needed about the prevalence of age-related cataract in the
bI?uV;m> community as well as the factors associated with cataract
k]"DsN$ surgery. The purpose of this study is to quantify the prevalence
BbCaIt of any cataract in Australia, to describe the factors
R!z32 <5k
related to unoperated cataract in the community and to
Bw Cwy describe the visual outcomes of cataract surgery.
\2#j1/d4 METHODS
"K)ue@? Study population
LW#$%} Details about the study methodology for the Visual
v!WkPvU Impairment Project have been published previously.11
D/oO@;`'c Briefly, cluster sampling within three strata was employed to
p[:E$#W~; recruit subjects aged 40 years and over to participate.
IpKpj"eoLy Within the Melbourne Statistical Division, nine pairs of
;Ff5ooL{ census collector districts were randomly selected. Fourteen
*IV_evgM7 nursing homes within a 5 km radius of these nine test sites
1 2J#}| were randomly chosen to recruit nursing home residents.
<XH,kI(% Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology (2000) 28, 77–82
q*d@5 Original Article
3#~w#Q0% Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia
N2\{h(*u Catherine A McCarty PhD, MPH, Mukesh B Nanjan PhD, Hugh R Taylor MD
H@V
+Q} Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
cB|Rj}40v n Correspondence: Dr Cathy McCarty MPH, Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, 32 Gisborne Street, East Melbourne,
O%p+P<J Victoria 3002, Australia. Email:
cathy@cera.unimelb.edu.au z-`-0@/A$ 78 McCarty et al.
q+cx.Rc# Finally, four pairs of census collector districts in four rural
fSw6nEXn Victorian communities were randomly selected to recruit rural
v)-:0f residents. A household census was conducted to identify
w6@8cNXK eligible residents aged 40 years and over who had been a
,,C
heRO resident at that address for at least 6 months. At the time of
&]P1IQ the household census, basic information about age, sex,
_l$X![@6= country of birth, language spoken at home, education, use of
Ncsk~=[ corrective spectacles and use of eye care services was collected.
mxkv{;ad Eligible residents were then invited to attend a local
l_0/g^( examination site for a more detailed interview and examination.
|!\5nix3A> The study protocol was approved by the Royal Victorian
rLJjK$_x Eye and Ear Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee.
\p{$9e;8yT Assessment of cataract
o.x<h"; A standardized ophthalmic examination was performed after
CvB)+>oa pupil dilatation with one drop of 10% phenylephrine
oV=~Q#v hydrochloride. Lens opacities were graded clinically at the
Lzy Ix!S time of the examination and subsequently from photos using
j
hr pS the Wilmer cataract photo-grading system.12 Cortical and
xa$p,_W:' posterior subcapsular (PSC) opacities were assessed on
k(%h{0' retroillumination and measured as the proportion (in 1/16)
wh)Ujgd of pupil circumference occupied by opacity. For this analysis,
9w08)2$Na cortical cataract was defined as 4/16 or greater opacity,
e!.r- v9 PSC cataract was defined as opacity equal to or greater than
rIo)'L$uU 1 mm2 and nuclear cataract was defined as opacity equal to
\o=Y
sJ
8U or greater than Wilmer standard 2,12 independent of visual
ua
HB\Uc acuity. Examples of the minimum opacities defined as cortical,
#(f- cK nuclear and PSC cataract are presented in Figure 1.
jI~GRk Bilateral congenital cataracts or cataracts secondary to
EL+P,q/b intraocular inflammation or trauma were excluded from the
5Ff1x-lQ analysis. Two cases of bilateral secondary cataract and eight
'>0rp\jC cases of bilateral congenital cataract were excluded from the
M<VZISu)dy analyses.
Gp5[H}8K A Topcon® SL5 photo slit-lamp (Topcon America Corp.,
<Z58"dg.5 Paramus, NJ, USA) with a 0.1 mm slit beam of 9.0 mm in
>cM}M =4s height set to an incident angle of 30° was used for examinations.
-lNT"9 Ektachrome® 200 ASA colour slide film (Eastman
Bgy?k K2[ Kodak Company, Rochester, NY, USA) was used to photograph
[G>U>[u| the nuclear opacities. The cortical opacities were
?)i`)mu' photographed with an Oxford® retroillumination camera
&R~)/y0] (Marcher Enterprises Ltd, Hereford, UK) and T-MAX® 400
/C"?Y' film (Eastman Kodak). Photographs were graded separately
6<N Q/*(/ by two research assistants and discrepancies were adjudicated
C#Y_La by an independent reviewer. Any discrepancies
c"x-_Uk between the clinical grades and the photograph grades were
* M,'F^E2 resolved. Except in cases where photographs were missing,
|ZBHXv the photograph grades were used in the analyses. Photograph
wjnQK grades were available for 4301 (84%) for cortical
!3 j@gi2 cataract, 4147 (81%) for nuclear cataract and 4303 (84%)
2\, h "W( for PSC cataract. Cataract status was classified according to
=p29}^@@t the severity of the opacity in the worse eye.
Sx|)GTJJ|- Assessment of risk factors
xK
W`m A standardized questionnaire was used to obtain information
iD-,C` about education, employment and ethnic background.11
QYj 8c]8f Specific information was elicited on the occurrence, duration
L4?)N&V and treatment of a number of medical conditions,
lX*IEAc including ocular trauma, arthritis, diabetes, gout, hypertension
8R;A5o, and mental illness. Information about the use, dose and
tP;^;nw duration of tobacco, alcohol, analgesics and steriods were
U#{^29ik=o collected, and a food frequency questionnaire was used to
9;B6<`e/U determine current consumption of dietary sources of antioxidants
m\O|BMHn and use of vitamin supplements.
r
s?"pGz; Data management and statistical analysis
Pk6l*+"r< Data were collected either by direct computer entry with a
~Vf+@_G8` questionnaire programmed in Paradox© (Carel Corporation,
8LZmr|/F* Ottawa, Canada) with internal consistency checks, or
S_EN,2'e on self-coding forms. Open-ended responses were coded at
; M%n=+[O a later time. Data that were entered on the self-coded forms
6x$1En were entered into a computer with double data entry and
AO"pm reconciliation of any inconsistencies. Data range and consistency
XKEd~2h<y checks were performed on the entire data set.
H*M )<"X SAS© version 6.1 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina) was
&!E+l<.RF employed for statistical analyses.
X\dPQwas
M Ninety-five per cent confidence limits around the agespecific
l0%qj(4`6& rates were calculated according to Cochran13 to
$%
ts#56* account for the effect of the cluster sampling. Ninety-five
.2V`sg.! per cent confidence limits around age-standardized rates
lNw8eT~2 were calculated according to Breslow and Day.14 The strataspecific
/y.+N`_ data were weighted according to the 1996
}h PFd Australian Bureau of Statistics census data15 to reflect the
j$TTLFK1 cataract prevalence in the entire Victorian population.
L-}6}5[ Univariate analyses with Student’s t-tests and chi-squared
NWt `X! tests were first employed to evaluate risk factors for unoperated
uR:@7n cataract. Any factors with P < 0.10 were then fitted
uN)o|7 into a backwards stepwise logistic regression model. For the
+v7mw<6s Figure 1. Minimum levels of cortical (a), nuclear (b), and posterior subcapsular (c) cataract.
#_b
U/rk)* final multivariate models, P < 0.05 was considered statistically
c[I4'x significant. Design effect was assessed through the use
<+tSTc4>r of cluster-specific models and multivariate models. The
>5aZ?#TS1 design effect was assumed to be additive and an adjustment
/4}B}"`Sl= made in the variance by adding the variance associated with
L/U^1=Wi*O the design effect prior to constructing the 95% confidence
tlnU2TT_f limits.
g{_wMf RESULTS
k[`9RGT Study population
@We im7r A total of 3271 (83%) of the Melbourne residents, 403
^bZ'z (90%) Melbourne nursing home residents, and 1473 (92%)
b3Uw"{p rural residents participated. In general, non-participants did
w4m)lQM not differ from participants.16 The study population was
xDU{I0M representative of the Victorian population and Australia as
`}Of'i a whole.
l.
9
i ` The Melbourne residents ranged in age from 40 to
L>&o_bzp 98 years (mean = 59) and 1511 (46%) were male. The
GbLuXU Melbourne nursing home residents ranged in age from 46 to
~ryB*eZH 101 years (mean = 82) and 85 (21%) were men. The rural
^{IF2_h" residents ranged in age from 40 to 103 years (mean = 60)
u?J
!3ZEtb and 701 (47.5%) were men.
q$|Wxnz Prevalence of cataract and prior cataract surgery
"x+o(jOy As would be expected, the rate of any cataract increases
~`uEZ dramatically with age (Table 1). The weighted rate of any
w=ib@_:f cataract in Victoria was 21.5% (95% CL 18.1, 24.9).
=Ts3O0"[ Although the rates varied somewhat between the three
*CIR$sS strata, they were not significantly different as the 95% confidence
G` _LD+ limits overlapped. The per cent of cataractous eyes
2~*J<iO&l with best-corrected visual acuity of less than 6/12 was 12.5%
kXfTNMb (65/520) for cortical cataract, 18% for nuclear cataract
]d4`PXI (97/534) and 14.4% (27/187) for PSC cataract. Cataract
g[NmVY-o surgery also rose dramatically with age. The overall
ko2T9NI:S weighted rate of prior cataract surgery in Victoria was
al<;*n{/ 3.79% (95% CL 2.97, 4.60) (Table 2).
_6tir'z Risk factors for unoperated cataract
Ap:mc: Cases of cataract that had not been removed were classified
e2~$=f- as unoperated cataract. Risk factor analyses for unoperated
rwJCVkF cataract were not performed with the nursing home residents
Mx7 as information about risk factor exposure was not
M/O
Y
"eL available for this cohort. The following factors were assessed
8NE+G.:G in relation to unoperated cataract: age, sex, residence
F&Bh\C)] (urban/rural), language spoken at home (a measure of ethnic
Z}8khNCYr integration), country of birth, parents’ country of birth (a
+;T
`uOF} measure of ethnicity), years since migration, education, use
W<QMUu of ophthalmic services, use of optometric services, private
DR%16y<h health insurance status, duration of distance glasses use,
fj7\MTy glaucoma, age-related maculopathy and employment status.
?g6x
y[ In this cross sectional study it was not possible to assess the
/.1yxb#Z?, level of visual acuity that would predict a patient’s having
5 $vUdDTg cataract surgery, as visual acuity data prior to cataract
<-]
qU}- surgery were not available.
DL t "cAW The significant risk factors for unoperated cataract in univariate
P[G.LO analyses were related to: whether a participant had
}Ai_peO0a ever seen an optometrist, seen an ophthalmologist or been
M MQ^&!H diagnosed with glaucoma; and participants’ employment
jDV;tEY#^ status (currently employed) and age. These significant
1GaM!OC 9 factors were placed in a backwards stepwise logistic regression
o#^(mGj_. model. The factors that remained significantly related
^%qe&Pe2 to unoperated cataract were whether participants had ever
PXx:JZsju seen an ophthalmologist, seen an optometrist and been
k6}M7&nY diagnosed with glaucoma. None of the demographic factors
TI<?h(*R_ were associated with unoperated cataract in the multivariate
v>[U*E model.
_ddOsg|U The per cent of participants with unoperated cataract
kA"|PtrW who said that they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with
*3
Vic Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia 79
e2dg{n$6" Table 1. Prevalence of any cataracta (excluding previous cataract surgery) by age, gender and cohort
GBvgVX< Age group Sex Urban Rural Nursing home Weighted total
N|N#- (years) (%) (%) (%)
S#:yl>2 40–49 Male 2.56 4.04 0.00 3.00 (1.91, 4.08)
}g9g]\.!a Female 2.61 1.70 0.00 2.36 (1.61, 3.10)
$!ATj`}kb 50–59 Male 7.69 6.94 0.00 7.47 (5.80, 9.15)
Fs3rsig Female 6.67 7.56 0.00 6.92 (5.60, 8.24)
gB)Cmw* 60–69 Male 20.7 25.0 10.0 22.0 (18.1, 26.0)
V#P`FX Female 27.9 35.7 37.5 30.3 (26.0, 34.7)
SJJ[y"GvD 70–79 Male 43.1 58.7 39.1 48.1 (41.2, 55.1)
<y4WG Female 58.6 66.2 55.6 61.0 (56.0, 65.9)
C]bre^q 80–89 Male 74.0 89.3 92.0 79.3 (72.3, 86.3)
zgnZ72% Female 91.9 97.0 80.2 92.6 (86.4, 98.8)
Wp
|qv 90 + Male 100.0 100.0 75.0 98.8 (96.2, 100.0)
d$gT,+|vu Female 100.0 100.0 93.8 98.6 (97.0, 100.0)
8{f~tPY Age-standardized
Ifu[L&U (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)
0zHMtC1, aCortical > 4/16, nuclear > standard 2, posterior subcapsular > 1 mm2
\+T U{vr their current vision was 30% (290/683), compared with 27%
DCheG7lo{ (26/95) of participants with prior cataract surgery (chisquared,
}HKt{k&$ 1 d.f. = 0.25, P = 0.62).
49Q
tfk Outcomes of cataract surgery
[X7KlS9x2 Two hundred and forty-nine eyes had undergone prior
xW.~Jt cataract surgery. Of these 249 operated eyes, 49 (20%) were
=A]*r9 left aphakic, 6 (2.4%) had anterior chamber intraocular
WcOnv'l, lenses and 194 (78%) had posterior chamber intraocular
=H_vRd
lenses. The rate of capsulotomy in the eyes with intact
@d1YN]ede posterior capsules was 36% (73/202). Fifteen per cent of
l8~s#:v6X eyes (17/114) with a clear posterior capsule had bestcorrected
hqW),^\>' visual acuity of less than 6/12 compared with 43%
W'Y?X]xr of eyes (6/14) with opaque capsules, and 15% of eyes
AeR*79x (11/73) with prior capsulotomies (chi-squared, 2 d.f. = 7.21,
[lz#+~rOS P = 0.027).
)jPIBzMys The percentage of eyes with best-corrected visual acuity
o6/"IIso3 of 6/12 or better was 96% (302/314) for eyes without
EpU}~vC9C cataract, 88% (1417/1609) for eyes with prevalent cataract
`Iqh\oY8- and 85% (211/249) for eyes with operated cataract (chisquared,
+ usB$=kJ 2 d.f. = 22.3), P < 0.001). Twenty-seven of the
;u*I#)7 operated eyes (11%) had visual acuities of less than 6/18
<;lwvO (moderate vision impairment) (Fig. 2). A cause of this
)qua0'y]@ moderate visual impairment (but not the only cause) in four
-~Chf4?<4 (15%) eyes was secondary to cataract surgery. Three of these
~$jRn(2 four eyes had undergone intracapsular cataract extraction
:Xs3Vh,V and the fourth eye had an opaque posterior capsule. No one
>K!$@]2F had bilateral vision impairment as a result of their cataract
-xVZm8y surgery.
2 -pv
& DISCUSSION
TZ#^AV=ae To our knowledge, this is the first paper to systematically
~5>k_\G8 assess the prevalence of current cataract, previous cataract
gx.\&W b surgery, predictors of unoperated cataract and the outcomes
|)y-EBZe\" of cataract surgery in a population-based sample. The Visual
t"nxny9& Impairment Project is unique in that the sampling frame and
va2FgW`Bd+ high response rate have ensured that the study population is
i<{:J -U| representative of Australians aged 40 years and over. Therefore,
zyB>peAp6j these data can be used to plan age-related cataract
pnTz.)'46 services throughout Australia.
Ce/D[% We found the rate of any cataract in those over the age
FA{'Ki` of 40 years to be 22%. Although relatively high, this rate is
+xS<^;
significantly less than was reported in a number of previous
zm mkmTp studies,2,4,6 with the exception of the Casteldaccia Eye
~(`&hYE Study.5 However, it is difficult to compare rates of cataract
d*dPi^JjC between studies because of different methodologies and
^"iJ cataract definitions employed in the various studies, as well
K+|0~/0 as the different age structures of the study populations.
L;=3n[^x Other studies have used less conservative definitions of
]sI\.a cataract, thus leading to higher rates of cataract as defined.
8~sC$sIlE In most large epidemiologic studies of cataract, visual acuity
aF[#(PF has not been included in the definition of cataract.
Te `MIR Therefore, the prevalence of cataract may not reflect the
?DE{4Ti/[ actual need for cataract surgery in the community.
n}C0gt- 80 McCarty et al.
XUA%3Xr Table 2. Prevalence of previous cataract by age, gender and cohort
X/Ii}X/p Age group Gender Urban Rural Nursing home Weighted total
.O SQ8W} (years) (%) (%) (%)
+LlAGg]Z
40–49 Male 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.80 (0.00, 1.81)
Js(MzL
Female 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (
a1EQ.u
50–59 Male 0.68 0.58 0.00 0.65 (0.13, 1.17)
m95]
z18T' Female 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.41 (0.00, 1.00)
4n*`%V 60–69 Male 2.12 7.59 0.00 3.80 (1.41, 6.19)
XePGOw))O Female 2.11 3.51 0.00 2.54 (1.81, 3.26)
|xT'+~u 70–79 Male 8.22 9.85 8.70 8.75 (6.38, 11.1)
S263h(H Female 7.21 7.86 7.02 7.41 (5.36, 9.46)
wScr:o+K>L 80–89 Male 25.0 30.0 14.3 26.2 (17.0, 35.4)
zYM0?O8pJ~ Female 27.9 25.6 18.3 26.7 (20.2, 33.3)
ANfy
+@ 90 + Male 0.00 16.7 66.7 9.19 (0.00, 21.5)
'wWuR@e#& Female 58.3 100.0 26.9 63.1 (44.4, 81.8)
(w vU;u Age-standardized
a`zHx3Yg (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)
lYey7tl{ Figure 2. Visual acuity in eyes that had undergone cataract
mC3:P5/c surgery, n = 249. h, Presenting; j, best-corrected.
?J-D6; Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia 81
+|H,N7a< The weighted prevalence of prior cataract surgery in the
\odns Visual Impairment Project (3.6%) was similar to the crude
1kD1$5 rate in the Beaver Dam Eye Study4 (3.1%), but less than the
d$8K,-M crude rate in the Blue Mountains Eye Study6 (6.0%).
E= .clA However, the age-standardized rate in the Blue Mountains
t>x!CNb'C Eye Study (standardized to the age distribution of the urban
Htfq?\ FD Visual Impairment Project cohort) was found to be less than
i^8w0H<-@v the Visual Impairment Project (standardized rate = 1.36%,
k
h8 M= 95% CL 1.25, 1.47). The incidence of cataract surgery in
":qS9vW Australia has exceeded population growth.1 This is due,
c:+UC perhaps, to advances in surgical techniques and lens
JSx[V<7m implants that have changed the risk–benefit ratio.
c[$i )\0 The Global Initiative for the Elimination of Avoidable
f0YBy<a Blindness, sponsored by the World Health Organization,
r?dkE=B states that cataract surgical services should be provided that
J%
ZM
V ‘have a high success rate in terms of visual outcome and
a54S,}| improved quality of life’,17 although the ‘high success rate’ is
mX, @yCI not defined. Population- and clinic-based studies conducted
j,Qb'|f5 in the United States have demonstrated marked improvement
~M1T
@Mv in visual acuity following cataract surgery.18–20 We
AS0mMHJk found that 85% of eyes that had undergone cataract extraction
jo<Gf 5 had visual acuity of 6/12 or better. Previously, we have
(`u+(M!^ shown that participants with prevalent cataract in this
6j!a*u:}" cohort are more likely to express dissatisfaction with their
wUfPnAD.' current vision than participants without cataract or participants
/<dl"PWkJv with prior cataract surgery.21 In a national study in the
t{ `-G*^ United States, researchers found that the change in patients’
P ?96; ratings of their vision difficulties and satisfaction with their
>5zD0!bA vision after cataract surgery were more highly related to
[4@@b"H their change in visual functioning score than to their change
Z=<D` in visual acuity.19 Furthermore, improvement in visual function
:c`djM^ll has been shown to be associated with improvement in
{7q8@`Oa overall quality of life.22
- s2Yhf A recent review found that the incidence of visually
Zm(}~C29 significant posterior capsule opacification following
zm4e+v- cataract surgery to be greater than 25%.23 We found 36%
3E>]6 capsulotomy in our population and that this was associated
&ha<p
j~ with visual acuity similar to that of eyes with a clear
w( ic$ capsule, but significantly better than that of eyes with an
yA`,ns&n opaque capsule.
^,[gO#hgz A number of studies have shown that the demand and
e`)zR'As timing of cataract surgery vary according to visual acuity,
6+C]rEY/o
degree of handicap and socioeconomic factors.8–10,24,25 We
'lgS)m have also shown previously that ophthalmologists are more
5j _[z|W2 likely to refer a patient for cataract surgery if the patient is
APU~y5vG ( employed and less likely to refer a nursing home resident.7
s&DAO r!i In the Visual Impairment Project, we did not find that any
5 L-6@@/ particular subgroup of the population was at greater risk of
eEeK ]8@ having unoperated cataract. Universal access to health care
Xj:\B] v] in Australia may explain the fact that people without
0_t9;;y : Medicare are more likely to delay cataract operations in the
^HHT>K-m USA,8 but not having private health insurance is not associated
lO}I>yo}\ with unoperated cataract in Australia.
j3>&Su>H4 In summary, cataract is a significant public health problem
/EL3Tt in that one in four people in their 80s will have had cataract
EclsOBg surgery. The importance of age-related cataract surgery will
SWNT}{x] increase further with the ageing of the population: the
2}5@:cwR+ number of people over age 60 years is expected to double in
mH'om
SCz the next 20 years. Cataract surgery services are well
0X%#9s~ accessed by the Victorian population and the visual outcomes
5[^Rf'wy of cataract surgery have been shown to be very good.
_ n4C~ These data can be used to plan for age-related cataract
"h&[6-0' surgical services in Australia in the future as the need for
% "ZC9uq? cataract extractions increases.
(T",6 xBSG ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
#jw%0H;l] The Visual Impairment Project was funded in part by grants
WX$AOnEv from the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, the
"}uV=y National Health and Medical Research Council, the Ansell
K
!gocNOf Ophthalmology Foundation, the Dorothy Edols Estate and
.?r}3Ch the Jack Brockhoff Foundation. Dr McCarty is the recipient
#?bOAWAwLh of a Wagstaff Fellowship in Ophthalmology from the Royal
O{=@c96rl Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital.
F4g3l REFERENCES
8`q"] BQN 1. Keeffe JE, Taylor HR. Cataract surgery in Australia 1985–94.
fc%C!^7 Aust. N.Z. J. Ophthalmol. 1996; 24: 313–17.
RP6hw| 2. Sperduto RD, Hiller R. The prevalence of nuclear, cortical,
bWMb@zm and posterior subcapsular lens opacities in a general population
p$6L_
*$ sample. Ophthalmology 1984; 91: 815–18.
^i17MvT'
3. Maraini G, Pasquini P, Sperduto RD et al. Distribution of lens
6H|&HV(!R opacities in the Italian-American case–control study of agerelated
{)-3g~ cataract. Ophthalmology 1990; 97: 752–6.
@Sz7*p 4. Klein BEK, Klein R, Linton KLP. Prevalence of age-related
Ewo6Q){X lens opacities in a population. The Beaver Dam Eye Study.
A*? Qm Ophthalmology 1992; 99: 546–52.
`W4Is~VVv 5. Guiffrè G, Giammanco R, Di Pace F, Ponte F. Casteldaccia eye
#M:Vwn
JX study: prevalence of cataract in the adult and elderly population
F=$U.K~1? of a Mediterranean town. Int. Ophthalmol. 1995; 18:
. Kk'N 363–71.
a.SxMF 6. Mitchell P, Cumming RG, Attebo K, Panchapakesan J.
<*
djtO Prevalence of cataract in Australia. The Blue Mountains Eye
mB*;> Study. Ophthalmology 1997; 104: 581–8.
6am<V]Hw0F 7. Keeffe JE, McCarty CA, Chang WP, Steinberg EP, Taylor HR.
`AhTER Relative importance of VA, patient concern and patient
@Y+9")
? lifestyle on referral for cataract surgery. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis.
{7 nz:f Sci. 1996; 37: S183.
$`Aps7A 8. Curbow B, Legro MW, Brenner MH. The influence of patientrelated
EBplr , variables in the timing of cataract extraction. Am. J.
3F9AnS Ophthalmol. 1993; 115: 614–22.
A)D1
#,0 9. Sletteberg OH, Høvding G, Bertelsen T. Do we operate too
]Hrw$\Ky many cataracts? The referred cataract patients’ own appraisal
w0fFm"A|W of their need for surgery. Acta Ophthalmol. Scand. 1995; 73:
rNX]tp{j 77–80.
FeuqqZ\=& 10. Escarce JJ. Would eliminating differences in physician practice
'E#Bz"T style reduce geographic variations in cataract surgery rates?
GP=&S|hi Med. Care 1993; 31: 1106–18.
rFYw6&;vOi 11. Livingston PM, Carson CA, Stanislavsky YL, Lee SE, Guest
[!b=A
:@ CS, Taylor HR. Methods for a population-based study of eye
.T^e8 disease: the Melbourne Visual Impairment Project. Ophthalmic
wnbKUlb Epidemiol. 1994; 1: 139–48.
UoKXo*W2 12. Taylor HR, West SK. A simple system for the clinical grading
P:v|JER
of lens opacities. Lens Res. 1988; 5: 175–81.
EnXTL]=0S 82 McCarty et al.
*W=R:Bl! 13. Cochran WG. Sampling Techniques. New York: John Wiley &
SFa~j)9'n Sons, 1977; 249–73.
G^_fbrZjN 14. Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical Methods in Cancer Research. Volume
L2^M#G@t II – the Design and Analysis of Cohort Studies. Lyon: International
mEDi'!YE" Agency for Research on Cancer; 1987; 52–61.
<>^otb,e$ 15. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 1996 Census of Population and
/ FA0(< -} Housing. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1997.
^`oyf{w@ 16. Livingston PM, Lee SE, McCarty CA, Taylor HR. A comparison
S(h+,+289 of participants with non-participants in a populationbased
Kv-4VWh epidemiologic study: the Melbourne Visual Impairment
O
O`-{HKt Project. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 1997; 4: 73–82.
m8<l2O=m 17. Programme for the Prevention of Blindness. Global Initiative for the
o<8=@ ^T Elimination of Avoidable Blindness. Geneva: World Health
8^6dK Organization, 1997.
UBvea(z-# 18. Applegate WB, Miller ST, Elam JT, Freeman JM, Wood TO,
AH#klYK Gettlefinger TC. Impact of cataract surgery with lens implantation
2';f8JLY on vision and physical function in elderly patients.
eNw9"
X}g JAMA 1987; 257: 1064–6.
zeG_H}[2& 19. Steinberg EP, Tielsch JM, Schein OD et al. National Study of
LHJjPf)F Cataract Surgery Outcomes. Variation in 4-month postoperative
ZF6?N?t}h8 outcomes as reflected in multiple outcome measures.
x*2' I Ophthalmology 1994; 101:1131–41.
6Cd% @Q2cr 20. Klein BEK, Klein R, Moss SE. Change in visual acuity associated
0413K_ with cataract surgery. The Beaver Dam Eye Study.
O+Q t8, Ophthalmology 1996; 103: 1727–31.
sX$EdIq 21. McCarty CA, Keeffe JE, Taylor HR. The need for cataract
\5s#9 surgery: projections based on lens opacity, visual acuity, and
j[<