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 Ig6>+Mw  
Purpose: To quantify the prevalence of cataract, the outcomes R0*+GIRA(  
of cataract surgery and the factors related to DeTZl+qm1E  
unoperated cataract in Australia. RU'DUf  
Methods: Participants were recruited from the Visual kVZ5>D$  
Impairment Project: a cluster, stratified sample of more than @Q atgYu  
5000 Victorians aged 40 years and over. At examination 7a:mZ[Vh  
sites interviews, clinical examinations and lens photography xbA% 'p  
were performed. Cataract was defined in participants who {G%!M+n<  
had: had previous cataract surgery, cortical cataract greater ~f2zMTI|  
than 4/16, nuclear greater than Wilmer standard 2, or :{tvAdMl7  
posterior subcapsular greater than 1 mm2. N{G+|WmQ  
Results: The participant group comprised 3271 Melbourne eMvb*X6  
residents, 403 Melbourne nursing home residents and 1473 <`q|6XWL  
rural residents.The weighted rate of any cataract in Victoria tnmuCz  
was 21.5%. The overall weighted rate of prior cataract wQ,RZO3  
surgery was 3.79%. Two hundred and forty-nine eyes had VPTT* a`  
had prior cataract surgery. Of these 249 procedures, 49 0ZV)Y<DJ  
(20%) were aphakic, 6 (2.4%) had anterior chamber FZ/l T -"  
intraocular lenses and 194 (78%) had posterior chamber ?fEX&t,'  
intraocular lenses.Two hundred and eleven of these operated [hS?d.D   
eyes (85%) had best-corrected visual acuity of 6/12 or s%z'1KPS  
better, the legal requirement for a driver’s license.Twentyseven E `)p,{T  
(11%) had visual acuity of less than 6/18 (moderate y=\jQ6Fc  
vision impairment). Complications of cataract surgery !DCJ2h%E[_  
caused reduced vision in four of the 27 eyes (15%), or 1.9% u hP0Zwn  
of operated eyes. Three of these four eyes had undergone >{4pEy  
intracapsular cataract extraction and the fourth eye had an LZG^\c$  
opaque posterior capsule. No one had bilateral vision XI\aZ\v  
impairment as a result of cataract surgery. Surprisingly, no 9VN @ M  
particular demographic factors (such as age, gender, rural Prhq ~oI4  
residence, occupation, employment status, health insurance c`X'Q)c&K  
status, ethnicity) were related to the presence of unoperated g#_?Vxt  
cataract. ),\>'{~5&  
Conclusions: Although the overall prevalence of cataract is Oyq<y~}  
quite high, no particular subgroup is systematically underserviced u?g!E."v  
in terms of cataract surgery. Overall, the results of J5Fg]O*  
cataract surgery are very good, with the majority of eyes =pcj{B{qa  
achieving driving vision following cataract extraction. d!KX.K\NM,  
Key words: cataract extraction, health planning, health (4 {49b  
services accessibility, prevalence AD?DIE(v  
INTRODUCTION /2dK*v0  
Cataract is the leading cause of blindness worldwide and, in f/;\/Q[Z7  
Australia, cataract extractions account for the majority of all +H&_Z38n  
ophthalmic procedures.1 Over the period 1985–94, the rate +X*`}-3  
of cataract surgery in Australia was twice as high as would be GYO\l.%V5y  
expected from the growth in the elderly population.1 HqXo;`Yy}  
Although there have been a number of studies reporting FOk @W&  
the prevalence of cataract in various populations,2–6 there is RaU.yCYyu  
little information about determinants of cataract surgery in X^|oY]D  
the population. A previous survey of Australian ophthalmologists 0dcXgP  
showed that patient concern and lifestyle, rather doR'=@ W  
than visual acuity itself, are the primary factors for referral h{* O9O<  
for cataract surgery.7 This supports prior research which has =(n'#mV  
shown that visual acuity is not a strong predictor of need for Gr6ma*)y~t  
cataract surgery.8,9 Elsewhere, socioeconomic status has  +rT(  
been shown to be related to cataract surgery rates.10 _yWH\ 5@  
To appropriately plan health care services, information is z}Z`kq+C  
needed about the prevalence of age-related cataract in the hx^a&"  
community as well as the factors associated with cataract \PLV]%3,  
surgery. The purpose of this study is to quantify the prevalence <Y orQ>  
of any cataract in Australia, to describe the factors <Y#R]gf1  
related to unoperated cataract in the community and to HQ s)T  
describe the visual outcomes of cataract surgery.  Nr[Rp  
METHODS zDl, bLiJ  
Study population E kL\~^  
Details about the study methodology for the Visual *b)b#p  
Impairment Project have been published previously.11 i52R,hz  
Briefly, cluster sampling within three strata was employed to gNqV>p  
recruit subjects aged 40 years and over to participate. WD\{Sdx:r  
Within the Melbourne Statistical Division, nine pairs of {cv;S2  
census collector districts were randomly selected. Fourteen qXI30Yo#d  
nursing homes within a 5 km radius of these nine test sites Yjl0Pz .q  
were randomly chosen to recruit nursing home residents. 5{g9Wh[  
Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology (2000) 28, 77–82 pMB=iS<E  
Original Article p&4n3%(R@  
Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia f oVD+\~Y  
Catherine A McCarty PhD, MPH, Mukesh B Nanjan PhD, Hugh R Taylor MD >1~`tP  
Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia v$i%>tQ\  
n Correspondence: Dr Cathy McCarty MPH, Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, 32 Gisborne Street, East Melbourne, fv_wK_. %:  
Victoria 3002, Australia. Email: cathy@cera.unimelb.edu.au SNU bY6  
78 McCarty et al. NNE,| :  
Finally, four pairs of census collector districts in four rural d8kwW!m+  
Victorian communities were randomly selected to recruit rural '&QT }B  
residents. A household census was conducted to identify )A0 &16<  
eligible residents aged 40 years and over who had been a 5lxq-E3  
resident at that address for at least 6 months. At the time of 5 WppV3;  
the household census, basic information about age, sex, FqsjuU@l  
country of birth, language spoken at home, education, use of | q16%6q  
corrective spectacles and use of eye care services was collected. b(q&}60  
Eligible residents were then invited to attend a local Kk98FI0]  
examination site for a more detailed interview and examination.  y:OywIi(  
The study protocol was approved by the Royal Victorian ptv 4v[gQ  
Eye and Ear Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee. $cOD6Xr)d  
Assessment of cataract :UcS$M1LE  
A standardized ophthalmic examination was performed after c2\vG  
pupil dilatation with one drop of 10% phenylephrine N#)VD\m  
hydrochloride. Lens opacities were graded clinically at the NoAb}1uae  
time of the examination and subsequently from photos using W79A4l<  
the Wilmer cataract photo-grading system.12 Cortical and 'B5J.Xe:  
posterior subcapsular (PSC) opacities were assessed on p\_qHq\;j  
retroillumination and measured as the proportion (in 1/16) 4D8yb|o  
of pupil circumference occupied by opacity. For this analysis, 'HWgvmw(  
cortical cataract was defined as 4/16 or greater opacity, 2Ml2Ue-9  
PSC cataract was defined as opacity equal to or greater than A4Q)YY9~  
1 mm2 and nuclear cataract was defined as opacity equal to :ZfUjqRE  
or greater than Wilmer standard 2,12 independent of visual @ KPv&UB  
acuity. Examples of the minimum opacities defined as cortical, '+I 2$xE  
nuclear and PSC cataract are presented in Figure 1. LEngZ~sV/  
Bilateral congenital cataracts or cataracts secondary to To8v#.i  
intraocular inflammation or trauma were excluded from the uP=_-ZUW  
analysis. Two cases of bilateral secondary cataract and eight .(dmuV9  
cases of bilateral congenital cataract were excluded from the A Wh* <H  
analyses. ROt0<^<  
A Topcon® SL5 photo slit-lamp (Topcon America Corp., 7k t7^V<  
Paramus, NJ, USA) with a 0.1 mm slit beam of 9.0 mm in :y-0qz D?  
height set to an incident angle of 30° was used for examinations. VtzmY  
Ektachrome® 200 ASA colour slide film (Eastman 0"<;You  
Kodak Company, Rochester, NY, USA) was used to photograph S[hJ{0V  
the nuclear opacities. The cortical opacities were fpK0MS]=b  
photographed with an Oxford® retroillumination camera d!QD vO  
(Marcher Enterprises Ltd, Hereford, UK) and T-MAX® 400 =Sb:<q+Q  
film (Eastman Kodak). Photographs were graded separately -6~dJTm[t  
by two research assistants and discrepancies were adjudicated $|cp;~ 1  
by an independent reviewer. Any discrepancies KG-k$glD  
between the clinical grades and the photograph grades were H8<7#  
resolved. Except in cases where photographs were missing, *L4]\wf  
the photograph grades were used in the analyses. Photograph hKH$AEHEU}  
grades were available for 4301 (84%) for cortical q:- ]d0B+  
cataract, 4147 (81%) for nuclear cataract and 4303 (84%) w-'D*dOi  
for PSC cataract. Cataract status was classified according to 'e<HPNi)  
the severity of the opacity in the worse eye. S1az3VJI\  
Assessment of risk factors }*B qi7E>  
A standardized questionnaire was used to obtain information PX69   
about education, employment and ethnic background.11 j""y2c1  
Specific information was elicited on the occurrence, duration ^iV`g?z  
and treatment of a number of medical conditions, A ^4kYOe  
including ocular trauma, arthritis, diabetes, gout, hypertension vNK`Y|u@  
and mental illness. Information about the use, dose and $&xuVBs   
duration of tobacco, alcohol, analgesics and steriods were TJyH/ C  
collected, and a food frequency questionnaire was used to \2].|Mym  
determine current consumption of dietary sources of antioxidants QWz Op\+  
and use of vitamin supplements. da9*9yN  
Data management and statistical analysis `bZ2x@  
Data were collected either by direct computer entry with a 409x!d~it  
questionnaire programmed in Paradox© (Carel Corporation, #Cg}!38  
Ottawa, Canada) with internal consistency checks, or 2xL!PR-  
on self-coding forms. Open-ended responses were coded at oeu|/\+HW  
a later time. Data that were entered on the self-coded forms {8!ZKlB  
were entered into a computer with double data entry and hs!UX=x|  
reconciliation of any inconsistencies. Data range and consistency &J lpA<^s;  
checks were performed on the entire data set. gqP -E  
SAS© version 6.1 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina) was -~v l+L  
employed for statistical analyses. C@TN5?Z  
Ninety-five per cent confidence limits around the agespecific YM #  
rates were calculated according to Cochran13 to 97qtJ(ESI  
account for the effect of the cluster sampling. Ninety-five )(:+q(m  
per cent confidence limits around age-standardized rates L;1$xI8tx  
were calculated according to Breslow and Day.14 The strataspecific sorSyuG r  
data were weighted according to the 1996 tr6jh=  
Australian Bureau of Statistics census data15 to reflect the "*Lj8C3|n  
cataract prevalence in the entire Victorian population. XKz;o^1a^  
Univariate analyses with Student’s t-tests and chi-squared kq)+@p  
tests were first employed to evaluate risk factors for unoperated F[>7z3I  
cataract. Any factors with P < 0.10 were then fitted xoqiRtlY:  
into a backwards stepwise logistic regression model. For the BA~a?"HS  
Figure 1. Minimum levels of cortical (a), nuclear (b), and posterior subcapsular (c) cataract. :V&N\>Wo  
final multivariate models, P < 0.05 was considered statistically +V)qep"  
significant. Design effect was assessed through the use f,St h7y  
of cluster-specific models and multivariate models. The E S#rs="  
design effect was assumed to be additive and an adjustment Ni+3b  
made in the variance by adding the variance associated with 5h_<R!jA  
the design effect prior to constructing the 95% confidence cvZni#o2)  
limits. %xf)m[JU=  
RESULTS Yta1`  
Study population u~" siH  
A total of 3271 (83%) of the Melbourne residents, 403 `d75@0:  
(90%) Melbourne nursing home residents, and 1473 (92%) uz]E_&2  
rural residents participated. In general, non-participants did R;H?gE^m-  
not differ from participants.16 The study population was ;*y|8od B  
representative of the Victorian population and Australia as w+q?T  
a whole. g(m xhD!k  
The Melbourne residents ranged in age from 40 to ;(K  
98 years (mean = 59) and 1511 (46%) were male. The u K'<xM"%T  
Melbourne nursing home residents ranged in age from 46 to sT)6nV  
101 years (mean = 82) and 85 (21%) were men. The rural N*~_\x  
residents ranged in age from 40 to 103 years (mean = 60) /@Ez" ?V2  
and 701 (47.5%) were men. vKU`C?,L  
Prevalence of cataract and prior cataract surgery p? ;-!TUv  
As would be expected, the rate of any cataract increases -<_7\09  
dramatically with age (Table 1). The weighted rate of any I[ai:   
cataract in Victoria was 21.5% (95% CL 18.1, 24.9). 1xz\=HO T  
Although the rates varied somewhat between the three x ;Gz6|  
strata, they were not significantly different as the 95% confidence CoJ55TAW  
limits overlapped. The per cent of cataractous eyes cFLd)mt/  
with best-corrected visual acuity of less than 6/12 was 12.5% \yM-O-{  
(65/520) for cortical cataract, 18% for nuclear cataract R8tF/dx>7  
(97/534) and 14.4% (27/187) for PSC cataract. Cataract 5^>n5u/  
surgery also rose dramatically with age. The overall |=\91fP68`  
weighted rate of prior cataract surgery in Victoria was Tj`yJ!0  
3.79% (95% CL 2.97, 4.60) (Table 2). N=#4L$@-  
Risk factors for unoperated cataract z!:'V]  
Cases of cataract that had not been removed were classified co/7lsW  
as unoperated cataract. Risk factor analyses for unoperated h4Ia>^@  
cataract were not performed with the nursing home residents h 'l^g%;  
as information about risk factor exposure was not  {7X#4o0  
available for this cohort. The following factors were assessed /&h+t^l_Qj  
in relation to unoperated cataract: age, sex, residence #XI"@pD  
(urban/rural), language spoken at home (a measure of ethnic !qA8Zky_  
integration), country of birth, parents’ country of birth (a &3Tx@XhO  
measure of ethnicity), years since migration, education, use 6 mO"  
of ophthalmic services, use of optometric services, private VFO \4:.  
health insurance status, duration of distance glasses use, TFy7HX\Oq  
glaucoma, age-related maculopathy and employment status. Zn&k[?;Al  
In this cross sectional study it was not possible to assess the jJ~Y]dQi  
level of visual acuity that would predict a patient’s having r~8;kcu7  
cataract surgery, as visual acuity data prior to cataract se!mb _!  
surgery were not available. HR60   
The significant risk factors for unoperated cataract in univariate t\r:E2 O  
analyses were related to: whether a participant had qzK("d  
ever seen an optometrist, seen an ophthalmologist or been kX[fy7rVt  
diagnosed with glaucoma; and participants’ employment e7xj_QH  
status (currently employed) and age. These significant W J+> e+  
factors were placed in a backwards stepwise logistic regression &[@\f^~  
model. The factors that remained significantly related %y"J8;U  
to unoperated cataract were whether participants had ever "+|L_iuNQ  
seen an ophthalmologist, seen an optometrist and been by86zX  
diagnosed with glaucoma. None of the demographic factors H9` f0(H  
were associated with unoperated cataract in the multivariate ~ y;y(4<  
model. J!h^egP  
The per cent of participants with unoperated cataract u@=?#a$$  
who said that they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with ^bUxLa[.  
Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia 79 6;oe=Q:Q  
Table 1. Prevalence of any cataracta (excluding previous cataract surgery) by age, gender and cohort :gI.l1  
Age group Sex Urban Rural Nursing home Weighted total  {8@\Ij  
(years) (%) (%) (%) _3>djF_ u  
40–49 Male 2.56 4.04 0.00 3.00 (1.91, 4.08) q0O&UE)6Y  
Female 2.61 1.70 0.00 2.36 (1.61, 3.10) 'r+PH*Mr  
50–59 Male 7.69 6.94 0.00 7.47 (5.80, 9.15) 4h|dHXYZ  
Female 6.67 7.56 0.00 6.92 (5.60, 8.24) R 1ktj  
60–69 Male 20.7 25.0 10.0 22.0 (18.1, 26.0) &~-~5B|3"  
Female 27.9 35.7 37.5 30.3 (26.0, 34.7) V 0{tap}  
70–79 Male 43.1 58.7 39.1 48.1 (41.2, 55.1) z`$J_CjY  
Female 58.6 66.2 55.6 61.0 (56.0, 65.9) ;sPzOS9  
80–89 Male 74.0 89.3 92.0 79.3 (72.3, 86.3) A0xC,V~z  
Female 91.9 97.0 80.2 92.6 (86.4, 98.8) ^J x$t/t  
90 + Male 100.0 100.0 75.0 98.8 (96.2, 100.0) } /:\U p  
Female 100.0 100.0 93.8 98.6 (97.0, 100.0) V"RpH,  
Age-standardized [-w@.^:]X  
(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) l@~LV}BI  
aCortical > 4/16, nuclear > standard 2, posterior subcapsular > 1 mm2 rdJB*Rlkh  
their current vision was 30% (290/683), compared with 27% {G*QY%j^  
(26/95) of participants with prior cataract surgery (chisquared, GAEO$e:  
1 d.f. = 0.25, P = 0.62). TGV  
Outcomes of cataract surgery 1n%8j*bJq  
Two hundred and forty-nine eyes had undergone prior 4]XI"-M^D  
cataract surgery. Of these 249 operated eyes, 49 (20%) were !3}deY8;#  
left aphakic, 6 (2.4%) had anterior chamber intraocular or?%-)  
lenses and 194 (78%) had posterior chamber intraocular |3eGz%Sd  
lenses. The rate of capsulotomy in the eyes with intact H s?zq  
posterior capsules was 36% (73/202). Fifteen per cent of &%F@O< :  
eyes (17/114) with a clear posterior capsule had bestcorrected O/OiQ^T  
visual acuity of less than 6/12 compared with 43% ]=&L_(34  
of eyes (6/14) with opaque capsules, and 15% of eyes &__DJ''+  
(11/73) with prior capsulotomies (chi-squared, 2 d.f. = 7.21, (ku5WWJ  
P = 0.027). B)=~8wsI:Z  
The percentage of eyes with best-corrected visual acuity rVryt<2:@r  
of 6/12 or better was 96% (302/314) for eyes without pY}/j;.[  
cataract, 88% (1417/1609) for eyes with prevalent cataract d;G~hVu  
and 85% (211/249) for eyes with operated cataract (chisquared, 3h=8"lRc  
2 d.f. = 22.3), P < 0.001). Twenty-seven of the mLwY]2T"  
operated eyes (11%) had visual acuities of less than 6/18 @}LZ! y  
(moderate vision impairment) (Fig. 2). A cause of this y?z\L   
moderate visual impairment (but not the only cause) in four XGs^rIf  
(15%) eyes was secondary to cataract surgery. Three of these VWf %v  
four eyes had undergone intracapsular cataract extraction e%6{ME 3  
and the fourth eye had an opaque posterior capsule. No one j, u#K)7{T  
had bilateral vision impairment as a result of their cataract `y!/F?o+!  
surgery. J !#Zi#8sF  
DISCUSSION g`,AaWlF  
To our knowledge, this is the first paper to systematically 1;r69e  
assess the prevalence of current cataract, previous cataract kDsI p=  
surgery, predictors of unoperated cataract and the outcomes _PXdzeI.  
of cataract surgery in a population-based sample. The Visual _N#&psQzw  
Impairment Project is unique in that the sampling frame and 8 %Sb+w07  
high response rate have ensured that the study population is FxU'LN<;HY  
representative of Australians aged 40 years and over. Therefore, #G;X' BN  
these data can be used to plan age-related cataract }STYG`  
services throughout Australia. rU\[SrIhz  
We found the rate of any cataract in those over the age SgM.B  
of 40 years to be 22%. Although relatively high, this rate is _j ;3-m  
significantly less than was reported in a number of previous aW;aA'!  
studies,2,4,6 with the exception of the Casteldaccia Eye .{so  
Study.5 However, it is difficult to compare rates of cataract >P(`MSc  
between studies because of different methodologies and (xT*LF+  
cataract definitions employed in the various studies, as well H{zPft  
as the different age structures of the study populations. t 1i(;|8|  
Other studies have used less conservative definitions of L\  j:  
cataract, thus leading to higher rates of cataract as defined. 3Sh+ u>w  
In most large epidemiologic studies of cataract, visual acuity 2CLB1  
has not been included in the definition of cataract. R}{GwbF_\  
Therefore, the prevalence of cataract may not reflect the ^Kq|ID AP  
actual need for cataract surgery in the community. {d!Y3+I%G  
80 McCarty et al. ZF{~ih*^u  
Table 2. Prevalence of previous cataract by age, gender and cohort v'ay.oVzw  
Age group Gender Urban Rural Nursing home Weighted total 5 2Hqu>  
(years) (%) (%) (%) Y 1\K;;X  
40–49 Male 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.80 (0.00, 1.81) Ap<J'?~y  
Female 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ( XAD3Z?  
50–59 Male 0.68 0.58 0.00 0.65 (0.13, 1.17) 7 .+al)hl  
Female 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.41 (0.00, 1.00) .W.;~`EW  
60–69 Male 2.12 7.59 0.00 3.80 (1.41, 6.19) O|z%DkH[  
Female 2.11 3.51 0.00 2.54 (1.81, 3.26) d-$_|G+  
70–79 Male 8.22 9.85 8.70 8.75 (6.38, 11.1) ~j& ?/{7I  
Female 7.21 7.86 7.02 7.41 (5.36, 9.46) 'mV:@].le  
80–89 Male 25.0 30.0 14.3 26.2 (17.0, 35.4) A 7Y_HIo  
Female 27.9 25.6 18.3 26.7 (20.2, 33.3) J/kH%_ >Ir  
90 + Male 0.00 16.7 66.7 9.19 (0.00, 21.5) "c Pz|~  
Female 58.3 100.0 26.9 63.1 (44.4, 81.8) Pj!%ym3A  
Age-standardized gCV  rC  
(95% CL) Combined 3.31 (2.70, 3.93) 4.36 (2.67, 6.06) 2.26 (0.82, 3.70) 3.79 (2.97, 4.60) z,+m[x=/N  
Figure 2. Visual acuity in eyes that had undergone cataract ,nYZxYLf+  
surgery, n = 249. h, Presenting; j, best-corrected. !5.v'K '  
Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia 81 RKe?.  
The weighted prevalence of prior cataract surgery in the 1t2cY;vJ  
Visual Impairment Project (3.6%) was similar to the crude eH[y[~r  
rate in the Beaver Dam Eye Study4 (3.1%), but less than the `A{'s %$?!  
crude rate in the Blue Mountains Eye Study6 (6.0%). /Ynt<S9"  
However, the age-standardized rate in the Blue Mountains zJ_My&~  
Eye Study (standardized to the age distribution of the urban  N|N/)  
Visual Impairment Project cohort) was found to be less than p JX, n  
the Visual Impairment Project (standardized rate = 1.36%, -W^2*w   
95% CL 1.25, 1.47). The incidence of cataract surgery in C->[$HcRa  
Australia has exceeded population growth.1 This is due, M6x;BjrV  
perhaps, to advances in surgical techniques and lens =n)#!i  
implants that have changed the risk–benefit ratio. {~1M  
The Global Initiative for the Elimination of Avoidable C~_q^fXJt  
Blindness, sponsored by the World Health Organization, buc*rtHfA  
states that cataract surgical services should be provided that #tP )-ww  
‘have a high success rate in terms of visual outcome and 44|03Ty  
improved quality of life’,17 although the ‘high success rate’ is ;]u1~  
not defined. Population- and clinic-based studies conducted b)y<.pS\  
in the United States have demonstrated marked improvement o HRbAE^  
in visual acuity following cataract surgery.18–20 We c0h dLl;5  
found that 85% of eyes that had undergone cataract extraction pfNThMf  
had visual acuity of 6/12 or better. Previously, we have 6(sfpK'  
shown that participants with prevalent cataract in this  l58l  
cohort are more likely to express dissatisfaction with their `|NevpXY1  
current vision than participants without cataract or participants a6 * Y%?  
with prior cataract surgery.21 In a national study in the B8>FCF&}E  
United States, researchers found that the change in patients’ *IVD/9/  
ratings of their vision difficulties and satisfaction with their ":z@c,  
vision after cataract surgery were more highly related to Wd1 IX^7C%  
their change in visual functioning score than to their change 5 u"nxT   
in visual acuity.19 Furthermore, improvement in visual function d`<#}-nh  
has been shown to be associated with improvement in =b|)Wnt2f  
overall quality of life.22 [lrmuf  
A recent review found that the incidence of visually }$ w4SpR  
significant posterior capsule opacification following Q=MCMe  
cataract surgery to be greater than 25%.23 We found 36%   -kV|  
capsulotomy in our population and that this was associated d+1L5}Jn  
with visual acuity similar to that of eyes with a clear )m oo?Q  
capsule, but significantly better than that of eyes with an rZb_1E<  
opaque capsule. 56VE[G  
A number of studies have shown that the demand and *yL|}  
timing of cataract surgery vary according to visual acuity, zvWO4\  
degree of handicap and socioeconomic factors.8–10,24,25 We ^ON-#  
have also shown previously that ophthalmologists are more VuP#b'g=|]  
likely to refer a patient for cataract surgery if the patient is M ^ 0w/  
employed and less likely to refer a nursing home resident.7 ^Osd/g  
In the Visual Impairment Project, we did not find that any fbi H   
particular subgroup of the population was at greater risk of "`y W]v  
having unoperated cataract. Universal access to health care hXj* {vT  
in Australia may explain the fact that people without pIM*c6  
Medicare are more likely to delay cataract operations in the 7H/! rx  
USA,8 but not having private health insurance is not associated KE } o  
with unoperated cataract in Australia. &h_d|8  
In summary, cataract is a significant public health problem 3ZT/>a>@  
in that one in four people in their 80s will have had cataract iT)2 ?I6!  
surgery. The importance of age-related cataract surgery will nvm1.}=Cnd  
increase further with the ageing of the population: the vr8J*36{  
number of people over age 60 years is expected to double in ]JhDRJ\  
the next 20 years. Cataract surgery services are well Sm~? zU[k/  
accessed by the Victorian population and the visual outcomes |hZ|+7  
of cataract surgery have been shown to be very good. FRs|!\S=  
These data can be used to plan for age-related cataract oj,Vi-TZ  
surgical services in Australia in the future as the need for \&l*e  
cataract extractions increases. _KT]l./  
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS bUZ& }(/  
The Visual Impairment Project was funded in part by grants ={wjeRp  
from the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, the 4Tbi%vF{  
National Health and Medical Research Council, the Ansell SWe!9Y$  
Ophthalmology Foundation, the Dorothy Edols Estate and o i,g  
the Jack Brockhoff Foundation. Dr McCarty is the recipient =~(LJPo6  
of a Wagstaff Fellowship in Ophthalmology from the Royal HY %6eUhj  
Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital. ~Krg8s!F&  
REFERENCES &6~ncQWu  
1. Keeffe JE, Taylor HR. Cataract surgery in Australia 1985–94. NjCLL`?f  
Aust. N.Z. J. Ophthalmol. 1996; 24: 313–17. o@Cn_p^X  
2. Sperduto RD, Hiller R. The prevalence of nuclear, cortical, BGk<NEzH  
and posterior subcapsular lens opacities in a general population R4K eUn"  
sample. Ophthalmology 1984; 91: 815–18. A16-  
3. Maraini G, Pasquini P, Sperduto RD et al. Distribution of lens wft:eQ  
opacities in the Italian-American case–control study of agerelated u9y-zhj_$  
cataract. Ophthalmology 1990; 97: 752–6. 1 _:1/~R1  
4. Klein BEK, Klein R, Linton KLP. Prevalence of age-related `h%D\EKeB  
lens opacities in a population. The Beaver Dam Eye Study. |M{,}.*CU  
Ophthalmology 1992; 99: 546–52. &VBD2_T  
5. Guiffrè G, Giammanco R, Di Pace F, Ponte F. Casteldaccia eye E&Zx]? ~  
study: prevalence of cataract in the adult and elderly population PrYWha=c-  
of a Mediterranean town. Int. Ophthalmol. 1995; 18: SBB bniK-  
363–71. ct4)faM  
6. Mitchell P, Cumming RG, Attebo K, Panchapakesan J. xQ(KmP2hl  
Prevalence of cataract in Australia. The Blue Mountains Eye HT;QepY3  
Study. Ophthalmology 1997; 104: 581–8. Z ysUz  
7. Keeffe JE, McCarty CA, Chang WP, Steinberg EP, Taylor HR. 5)zj){wL  
Relative importance of VA, patient concern and patient N*4IxY'vX/  
lifestyle on referral for cataract surgery. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. J&0wl]w|O%  
Sci. 1996; 37: S183. onypwfIk)t  
8. Curbow B, Legro MW, Brenner MH. The influence of patientrelated 1'._SMP  
variables in the timing of cataract extraction. Am. J. 0kr& c;~  
Ophthalmol. 1993; 115: 614–22. `[HoxCV3o  
9. Sletteberg OH, Høvding G, Bertelsen T. Do we operate too j9 &AMg  
many cataracts? The referred cataract patients’ own appraisal LW8{a&  
of their need for surgery. Acta Ophthalmol. Scand. 1995; 73: 6W#F Ss~  
77–80. |$*9j""u  
10. Escarce JJ. Would eliminating differences in physician practice j$i8@]  
style reduce geographic variations in cataract surgery rates? 'MM~ ~:  
Med. Care 1993; 31: 1106–18. l\l]9Z6%  
11. Livingston PM, Carson CA, Stanislavsky YL, Lee SE, Guest RgzSaP;;  
CS, Taylor HR. Methods for a population-based study of eye w"Y55EURB  
disease: the Melbourne Visual Impairment Project. Ophthalmic V?=zuB?'  
Epidemiol. 1994; 1: 139–48. g&(~MD2{  
12. Taylor HR, West SK. A simple system for the clinical grading -tdON  
of lens opacities. Lens Res. 1988; 5: 175–81. lSsFI30  
82 McCarty et al. TKutO0  
13. Cochran WG. Sampling Techniques. New York: John Wiley & :s5<AT Q  
Sons, 1977; 249–73. 'C4Ll2  
14. Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical Methods in Cancer Research. Volume {qdhp_~^l  
II – the Design and Analysis of Cohort Studies. Lyon: International +o70: UF%  
Agency for Research on Cancer; 1987; 52–61. -2u+m  
15. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 1996 Census of Population and 42[:s:  
Housing. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1997. 745V!#3!M  
16. Livingston PM, Lee SE, McCarty CA, Taylor HR. A comparison 03jBN2[!  
of participants with non-participants in a populationbased Z8_gI[Zn  
epidemiologic study: the Melbourne Visual Impairment G:s:NXy^  
Project. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 1997; 4: 73–82. YU"\ Wd[  
17. Programme for the Prevention of Blindness. Global Initiative for the ^i k|l=  
Elimination of Avoidable Blindness. Geneva: World Health J]YN2{(x  
Organization, 1997. 2Ab#uPBn  
18. Applegate WB, Miller ST, Elam JT, Freeman JM, Wood TO, QX3![;0F  
Gettlefinger TC. Impact of cataract surgery with lens implantation ee?ZkU#@  
on vision and physical function in elderly patients. +>%+r  
JAMA 1987; 257: 1064–6. LjAIB(*  
19. Steinberg EP, Tielsch JM, Schein OD et al. National Study of rNO;yL4)ey  
Cataract Surgery Outcomes. Variation in 4-month postoperative UR=s{nFd  
outcomes as reflected in multiple outcome measures. 51'SA B09  
Ophthalmology 1994; 101:1131–41. Q]:%Jj2  
20. Klein BEK, Klein R, Moss SE. Change in visual acuity associated 6)YNjh.{ *  
with cataract surgery. The Beaver Dam Eye Study. ==r|]~x  
Ophthalmology 1996; 103: 1727–31. -+Dvyr  
21. McCarty CA, Keeffe JE, Taylor HR. The need for cataract  aj B  
surgery: projections based on lens opacity, visual acuity, and ;z=C]kI6M  
personal concern. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1999; 83: 62–5. X'4 Yofs  
22. Brenner MH, Curbow B, Javitt JC, Legro MW, Sommer A. D/`E!6Fk=  
Vision change and quality of life in the elderly. Response to &4FdA|9T  
cataract surgery and treatment of other ocular conditions. PFw"ICs  
Arch. Ophthalmol. 1993; 111: 680–5. b(Xg6  
23. Schaumberg DA, Dana MR, Christen WG, Glynn RJ. A .AW*7Pp`f  
systematic overview of the incidence of posterior capsule @S92D6  
opacification. Ophthalmology 1998; 105: 1213–21. Zi)8KO[/0  
24. Mordue A, Parkin DW, Baxter C, Fawcett G, Stewart M. ?R}oXSVT  
Thresholds for treatment in cataract surgery. J. Public Health Al]9/ML/m  
Med. 1994; 16: 393–8. 8hp]+k_y  
25. Norregaard JC, Bernth-Peterson P, Alonso J et al. Variations in t1^96@m^  
indications for cataract surgery in the United States, Denmark, DV" ri  
Canada, and Spain: results from the International Cataract Y'h'8 \  
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:
freekaobo官方微信订阅号 正确答案:考博
按"Ctrl+Enter"直接提交