ABSTRACT
{U9jA
_XX Purpose: To quantify the prevalence of cataract, the outcomes
{T9g\F* of cataract surgery and the factors related to
dGg+[? unoperated cataract in Australia.
7~&Y"& Methods: Participants were recruited from the Visual
t9}XO
M* Impairment Project: a cluster, stratified sample of more than
WBGYk); 5000 Victorians aged 40 years and over. At examination
\ gN) GR sites interviews, clinical examinations and lens photography
-'2.^a-8-g were performed. Cataract was defined in participants who
<KpQu%2( had: had previous cataract surgery, cortical cataract greater
bu.36\78 than 4/16, nuclear greater than Wilmer standard 2, or
,#A,+!4 posterior subcapsular greater than 1 mm2.
VXa]L4jJ9 Results: The participant group comprised 3271 Melbourne
<j>@Fg#q residents, 403 Melbourne nursing home residents and 1473
wcOAyo5(n rural residents.The weighted rate of any cataract in Victoria
L%DL
n was 21.5%. The overall weighted rate of prior cataract
}fA3{Ro surgery was 3.79%. Two hundred and forty-nine eyes had
Vl EkT9^: had prior cataract surgery. Of these 249 procedures, 49
Wwz
>tE (20%) were aphakic, 6 (2.4%) had anterior chamber
xqr`T0!& intraocular lenses and 194 (78%) had posterior chamber
.q=X58tHu intraocular lenses.Two hundred and eleven of these operated
9#p^Z)[)- eyes (85%) had best-corrected visual acuity of 6/12 or
,%C$~+xjM better, the legal requirement for a driver’s license.Twentyseven
IkvH8E (11%) had visual acuity of less than 6/18 (moderate
zt8ZJlNK vision impairment). Complications of cataract surgery
WM#!X!Vo caused reduced vision in four of the 27 eyes (15%), or 1.9%
@.0,ka,X of operated eyes. Three of these four eyes had undergone
I}:/v$btM intracapsular cataract extraction and the fourth eye had an
s[g1ei9 opaque posterior capsule. No one had bilateral vision
wK3}K impairment as a result of cataract surgery. Surprisingly, no
&qr7yyY particular demographic factors (such as age, gender, rural
(X8N?tJ residence, occupation, employment status, health insurance
}N[sydL status, ethnicity) were related to the presence of unoperated
vH=I#Ajar cataract.
+X< Z
43 Conclusions: Although the overall prevalence of cataract is
(*EN! -/ quite high, no particular subgroup is systematically underserviced
ZGrV? @o,6 in terms of cataract surgery. Overall, the results of
>A)he!I cataract surgery are very good, with the majority of eyes
9> |rI
w achieving driving vision following cataract extraction.
`SVR_ Key words: cataract extraction, health planning, health
FUH1Z+9 services accessibility, prevalence
>!$4nxq2> INTRODUCTION
xj}N;FWo Cataract is the leading cause of blindness worldwide and, in
Yc
%eTh Australia, cataract extractions account for the majority of all
a}fW3+> ophthalmic procedures.1 Over the period 1985–94, the rate
T4UY%E!0 of cataract surgery in Australia was twice as high as would be
!b7H expected from the growth in the elderly population.1
5pDxFs=v Although there have been a number of studies reporting
kTzZj|l^\ the prevalence of cataract in various populations,2–6 there is
@<YZa$` little information about determinants of cataract surgery in
Fr
VD~; the population. A previous survey of Australian ophthalmologists
NO<m
yN+N showed that patient concern and lifestyle, rather
tpVtbh1)u than visual acuity itself, are the primary factors for referral
mF_/Rhu for cataract surgery.7 This supports prior research which has
snK/,lm.
shown that visual acuity is not a strong predictor of need for
=#W{&Te; cataract surgery.8,9 Elsewhere, socioeconomic status has
S`-z$ph} been shown to be related to cataract surgery rates.10
|.,yM| To appropriately plan health care services, information is
isaT0__8 needed about the prevalence of age-related cataract in the
&38Fj'l community as well as the factors associated with cataract
/r)d4=1E surgery. The purpose of this study is to quantify the prevalence
CocvEoE*z of any cataract in Australia, to describe the factors
~v5tx related to unoperated cataract in the community and to
_Q7)FK describe the visual outcomes of cataract surgery.
m{1By/U METHODS
{d3r>Ub)7d Study population
Z8:iaP) Details about the study methodology for the Visual
`aC#s3[ Impairment Project have been published previously.11
aWit^dp Briefly, cluster sampling within three strata was employed to
O[N{&\$ recruit subjects aged 40 years and over to participate.
*z(.D\{% Within the Melbourne Statistical Division, nine pairs of
Pukq{/27 census collector districts were randomly selected. Fourteen
5Po.&eS nursing homes within a 5 km radius of these nine test sites
KsHMAp3 were randomly chosen to recruit nursing home residents.
SmRU!C$A Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology (2000) 28, 77–82
+x
WT)h/ Original Article
H6~QSe0l Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia
f+)F-3 Catherine A McCarty PhD, MPH, Mukesh B Nanjan PhD, Hugh R Taylor MD
6#.R'O Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
#-@dc n Correspondence: Dr Cathy McCarty MPH, Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, 32 Gisborne Street, East Melbourne,
04,]upC${W Victoria 3002, Australia. Email:
cathy@cera.unimelb.edu.au ~#gVs*K 78 McCarty et al.
=n;ileGm+^ Finally, four pairs of census collector districts in four rural
5:YtBdP Victorian communities were randomly selected to recruit rural
/423!g0
Q residents. A household census was conducted to identify
)[/+j"F eligible residents aged 40 years and over who had been a
c|I{U[(U resident at that address for at least 6 months. At the time of
9<xe%V=ki the household census, basic information about age, sex,
a1s=t_wT country of birth, language spoken at home, education, use of
&oAuh?kTq corrective spectacles and use of eye care services was collected.
9g>ay-W[( Eligible residents were then invited to attend a local
(}}BZS&. examination site for a more detailed interview and examination.
G66vzwO The study protocol was approved by the Royal Victorian
R|Ykez!D Eye and Ear Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee.
TG'A'wXxy Assessment of cataract
b`1P%OjC A standardized ophthalmic examination was performed after
:^px1 pupil dilatation with one drop of 10% phenylephrine
B:Msn)C~ hydrochloride. Lens opacities were graded clinically at the
zaX30e:R time of the examination and subsequently from photos using
;@Ls"+g the Wilmer cataract photo-grading system.12 Cortical and
j_Dx4*vg posterior subcapsular (PSC) opacities were assessed on
=:5yRP retroillumination and measured as the proportion (in 1/16)
4,FuQ} of pupil circumference occupied by opacity. For this analysis,
y%iN9 -t cortical cataract was defined as 4/16 or greater opacity,
F!N;4J5u PSC cataract was defined as opacity equal to or greater than
Kh3*\x T 1 mm2 and nuclear cataract was defined as opacity equal to
CkIICx or greater than Wilmer standard 2,12 independent of visual
_G[5S-0 [ acuity. Examples of the minimum opacities defined as cortical,
R$NH [Tz nuclear and PSC cataract are presented in Figure 1.
<+C]^*j Bilateral congenital cataracts or cataracts secondary to
4km=KOx[ intraocular inflammation or trauma were excluded from the
nB"q analysis. Two cases of bilateral secondary cataract and eight
|f.=Y~aY cases of bilateral congenital cataract were excluded from the
\O`B@!da~ analyses.
91`biVZfA A Topcon® SL5 photo slit-lamp (Topcon America Corp.,
N!aV~\E Paramus, NJ, USA) with a 0.1 mm slit beam of 9.0 mm in
}h EBX:- height set to an incident angle of 30° was used for examinations.
}kGJ)zh Ektachrome® 200 ASA colour slide film (Eastman
sl>4O]N Kodak Company, Rochester, NY, USA) was used to photograph
p
n>zuHe the nuclear opacities. The cortical opacities were
hAKyT~[n0 photographed with an Oxford® retroillumination camera
lzw3 x (Marcher Enterprises Ltd, Hereford, UK) and T-MAX® 400
G23Mr9m5O film (Eastman Kodak). Photographs were graded separately
-Z)$].~|t by two research assistants and discrepancies were adjudicated
@D Qg1|m by an independent reviewer. Any discrepancies
ngn%"xYX between the clinical grades and the photograph grades were
"pQM
$3n( resolved. Except in cases where photographs were missing,
WUMx:a0! the photograph grades were used in the analyses. Photograph
p~DlZk" grades were available for 4301 (84%) for cortical
a| cataract, 4147 (81%) for nuclear cataract and 4303 (84%)
bvk+i?{H for PSC cataract. Cataract status was classified according to
e*:[#LJ]C the severity of the opacity in the worse eye.
Y)?4OB=n Assessment of risk factors
{> pB A standardized questionnaire was used to obtain information
Xo;J1
H about education, employment and ethnic background.11
?
20y6c < Specific information was elicited on the occurrence, duration
(+
q?xwl!N and treatment of a number of medical conditions,
VEd\* including ocular trauma, arthritis, diabetes, gout, hypertension
Fu(e4E and mental illness. Information about the use, dose and
84cmPnaT duration of tobacco, alcohol, analgesics and steriods were
x.<^L] " collected, and a food frequency questionnaire was used to
*(& J^ determine current consumption of dietary sources of antioxidants
AW!|xA6'`: and use of vitamin supplements.
rX{QgyY&
Data management and statistical analysis
vFV->/u Data were collected either by direct computer entry with a
Z[slN5]([ questionnaire programmed in Paradox© (Carel Corporation,
7Z93`A-= Ottawa, Canada) with internal consistency checks, or
b=Zg1SqV on self-coding forms. Open-ended responses were coded at
69`9!heu a later time. Data that were entered on the self-coded forms
U3&*,xeU@H were entered into a computer with double data entry and
/1gKc}rB2 reconciliation of any inconsistencies. Data range and consistency
1e _V@Vy checks were performed on the entire data set.
7"Zr:|$U SAS© version 6.1 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina) was
]9]3=;b> employed for statistical analyses.
9c}LG5 Ninety-five per cent confidence limits around the agespecific
Q{Jz;6" rates were calculated according to Cochran13 to
Z=L' [6 account for the effect of the cluster sampling. Ninety-five
N?p9h{DG per cent confidence limits around age-standardized rates
KQNSYI7a were calculated according to Breslow and Day.14 The strataspecific
EJNj.c-# data were weighted according to the 1996
P(VQ D>G Australian Bureau of Statistics census data15 to reflect the
3`5?Zgp cataract prevalence in the entire Victorian population.
q}M^i7IE Univariate analyses with Student’s t-tests and chi-squared
D@"q2 ! tests were first employed to evaluate risk factors for unoperated
i6h:%n]Io cataract. Any factors with P < 0.10 were then fitted
:{E3H3 into a backwards stepwise logistic regression model. For the
i5(_.1X<#{ Figure 1. Minimum levels of cortical (a), nuclear (b), and posterior subcapsular (c) cataract.
VCX})sp final multivariate models, P < 0.05 was considered statistically
\@*cj
8e significant. Design effect was assessed through the use
BYhPOg[ of cluster-specific models and multivariate models. The
4_F<jx,G design effect was assumed to be additive and an adjustment
U:J~Oy_Z made in the variance by adding the variance associated with
ZBJ.dK?Ky| the design effect prior to constructing the 95% confidence
E IsA2 f limits.
5u~Ik c~ RESULTS
z=?ainnKx Study population
N{q5E,} A total of 3271 (83%) of the Melbourne residents, 403
d,8V-Dk+p (90%) Melbourne nursing home residents, and 1473 (92%)
}{bO~L7
rural residents participated. In general, non-participants did
[0m'a\YE9 not differ from participants.16 The study population was
)#xd]~< representative of the Victorian population and Australia as
/n@_Ihx a whole.
!yojZG MB The Melbourne residents ranged in age from 40 to
##}a0\x| 98 years (mean = 59) and 1511 (46%) were male. The
>J.a,! Melbourne nursing home residents ranged in age from 46 to
!xj >~7 101 years (mean = 82) and 85 (21%) were men. The rural
7yeZ+lD residents ranged in age from 40 to 103 years (mean = 60)
nITr5$f and 701 (47.5%) were men.
,(OA5%A9zK Prevalence of cataract and prior cataract surgery
K 2LLuS! As would be expected, the rate of any cataract increases
4w2V["?X1 dramatically with age (Table 1). The weighted rate of any
4)/tCv cataract in Victoria was 21.5% (95% CL 18.1, 24.9).
>Q[]i4*A Although the rates varied somewhat between the three
&e cf5jFy strata, they were not significantly different as the 95% confidence
b]hRmW limits overlapped. The per cent of cataractous eyes
'G@Npp)&^ with best-corrected visual acuity of less than 6/12 was 12.5%
m4>v S (65/520) for cortical cataract, 18% for nuclear cataract
b[e+
(X (97/534) and 14.4% (27/187) for PSC cataract. Cataract
gAv?\9=a)W surgery also rose dramatically with age. The overall
FRs5 Pb1 weighted rate of prior cataract surgery in Victoria was
WVJN6YNd V 3.79% (95% CL 2.97, 4.60) (Table 2).
H{p+gj^J Risk factors for unoperated cataract
B7?784{x, Cases of cataract that had not been removed were classified
6l:CDPhR as unoperated cataract. Risk factor analyses for unoperated
&NHIX(b6 cataract were not performed with the nursing home residents
"84.qgYaG as information about risk factor exposure was not
*!C^L"i available for this cohort. The following factors were assessed
vlEd=H,LT in relation to unoperated cataract: age, sex, residence
#FTXy>W (urban/rural), language spoken at home (a measure of ethnic
M~ynJ@q integration), country of birth, parents’ country of birth (a
0sV;TQt+f measure of ethnicity), years since migration, education, use
(Pvch! of ophthalmic services, use of optometric services, private
owmA]f health insurance status, duration of distance glasses use,
8I@=? glaucoma, age-related maculopathy and employment status.
~yB[}BPf In this cross sectional study it was not possible to assess the
~l{CUQU level of visual acuity that would predict a patient’s having
+c\fDVv cataract surgery, as visual acuity data prior to cataract
q;>' jHh surgery were not available.
a)y8MGx? The significant risk factors for unoperated cataract in univariate
sNS!
/ analyses were related to: whether a participant had
T][\wyLx1 ever seen an optometrist, seen an ophthalmologist or been
XXxX;xz$ diagnosed with glaucoma; and participants’ employment
.i[Tp6'%, status (currently employed) and age. These significant
]%shs factors were placed in a backwards stepwise logistic regression
4i/ TEHQ model. The factors that remained significantly related
8M(N to unoperated cataract were whether participants had ever
~~'XY( \L@ seen an ophthalmologist, seen an optometrist and been
G}}oeS diagnosed with glaucoma. None of the demographic factors
1wGd5>GDA were associated with unoperated cataract in the multivariate
LT2mwJl model.
d-xKm2sH The per cent of participants with unoperated cataract
QJGRi who said that they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with
hvZW~
=75 Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia 79
) ,*&rd! Table 1. Prevalence of any cataracta (excluding previous cataract surgery) by age, gender and cohort
'<4OA!,^) Age group Sex Urban Rural Nursing home Weighted total
Ha4?I$'$ (years) (%) (%) (%)
!Y`nKC(=z 40–49 Male 2.56 4.04 0.00 3.00 (1.91, 4.08)
TZ-n)rC)v Female 2.61 1.70 0.00 2.36 (1.61, 3.10)
s+Ln>c'|o 50–59 Male 7.69 6.94 0.00 7.47 (5.80, 9.15)
B^{bXhDp Female 6.67 7.56 0.00 6.92 (5.60, 8.24)
lE=Q(QUr 60–69 Male 20.7 25.0 10.0 22.0 (18.1, 26.0)
6q6&N'We Female 27.9 35.7 37.5 30.3 (26.0, 34.7)
_qJ[~'m<^C 70–79 Male 43.1 58.7 39.1 48.1 (41.2, 55.1)
w#XE!8` Female 58.6 66.2 55.6 61.0 (56.0, 65.9)
[-vd]ob 80–89 Male 74.0 89.3 92.0 79.3 (72.3, 86.3)
&<.Z4GxS Female 91.9 97.0 80.2 92.6 (86.4, 98.8)
>:Q:+R;3o 90 + Male 100.0 100.0 75.0 98.8 (96.2, 100.0)
Y6^lKw Female 100.0 100.0 93.8 98.6 (97.0, 100.0)
nV"[WngN Age-standardized
fIWQ+E (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)
r/3!~??x aCortical > 4/16, nuclear > standard 2, posterior subcapsular > 1 mm2
C2ToT \^ their current vision was 30% (290/683), compared with 27%
5
MQRb?[ (26/95) of participants with prior cataract surgery (chisquared,
ukq9Cjs 1 d.f. = 0.25, P = 0.62).
sy/J+== Outcomes of cataract surgery
AVNB)K" Two hundred and forty-nine eyes had undergone prior
*M-.Vor?R cataract surgery. Of these 249 operated eyes, 49 (20%) were
?vf\_R'M left aphakic, 6 (2.4%) had anterior chamber intraocular
90I)"vfW5 lenses and 194 (78%) had posterior chamber intraocular
a,&Kvh lenses. The rate of capsulotomy in the eyes with intact
gt
jgC0 posterior capsules was 36% (73/202). Fifteen per cent of
%
z8@; eyes (17/114) with a clear posterior capsule had bestcorrected
J8? 6yd-7 visual acuity of less than 6/12 compared with 43%
=CRaMjN of eyes (6/14) with opaque capsules, and 15% of eyes
jcx/ZR (11/73) with prior capsulotomies (chi-squared, 2 d.f. = 7.21,
Mt@K01MI% P = 0.027).
6@bGh|
The percentage of eyes with best-corrected visual acuity
z13"S(5D~ of 6/12 or better was 96% (302/314) for eyes without
0SvPyf%AC cataract, 88% (1417/1609) for eyes with prevalent cataract
tGM)"u- and 85% (211/249) for eyes with operated cataract (chisquared,
{} vl^b 2 d.f. = 22.3), P < 0.001). Twenty-seven of the
1`2lTkg operated eyes (11%) had visual acuities of less than 6/18
HT1bsY
0t (moderate vision impairment) (Fig. 2). A cause of this
%qja:'k moderate visual impairment (but not the only cause) in four
du'$JtZo (15%) eyes was secondary to cataract surgery. Three of these
&[RC 4^;\V four eyes had undergone intracapsular cataract extraction
bmT J and the fourth eye had an opaque posterior capsule. No one
a[9;Okm# had bilateral vision impairment as a result of their cataract
1Rp|*> surgery.
3P-#NL DISCUSSION
bIWcL$}4Q To our knowledge, this is the first paper to systematically
8yztV dh assess the prevalence of current cataract, previous cataract
_Q.3X[88C surgery, predictors of unoperated cataract and the outcomes
X4%*&L of cataract surgery in a population-based sample. The Visual
$RA"NIZ:! Impairment Project is unique in that the sampling frame and
{'r(P& high response rate have ensured that the study population is
k"Sw,"e>+ representative of Australians aged 40 years and over. Therefore,
C:
e}}8i these data can be used to plan age-related cataract
bdcuO)3 services throughout Australia.
u c7Y8iO We found the rate of any cataract in those over the age
3)dT+lZ of 40 years to be 22%. Although relatively high, this rate is
DlIfr6F significantly less than was reported in a number of previous
T<! `~#kM studies,2,4,6 with the exception of the Casteldaccia Eye
}T(|\
X Study.5 However, it is difficult to compare rates of cataract
T6phD8# between studies because of different methodologies and
]]`+aF0 cataract definitions employed in the various studies, as well
+m>Kb edl as the different age structures of the study populations.
(G$m}ng Other studies have used less conservative definitions of
lbv, jS cataract, thus leading to higher rates of cataract as defined.
Bpk%,*$*) In most large epidemiologic studies of cataract, visual acuity
:;
??!V has not been included in the definition of cataract.
dYr# Therefore, the prevalence of cataract may not reflect the
" _q5\]z\O actual need for cataract surgery in the community.
cUy6/x9& 80 McCarty et al.
x$s #';* Table 2. Prevalence of previous cataract by age, gender and cohort
H56e#:[$ Age group Gender Urban Rural Nursing home Weighted total
d3n TJ X (years) (%) (%) (%)
Tmw
:w~ 40–49 Male 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.80 (0.00, 1.81)
^5;Y Female 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (
*><]
[|Y@H 50–59 Male 0.68 0.58 0.00 0.65 (0.13, 1.17)
c\;}ov+ Female 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.41 (0.00, 1.00)
[Cr_2 60–69 Male 2.12 7.59 0.00 3.80 (1.41, 6.19)
::M/s#-@ Female 2.11 3.51 0.00 2.54 (1.81, 3.26)
~Q]B}qdm 70–79 Male 8.22 9.85 8.70 8.75 (6.38, 11.1)
{{<o1{_H Female 7.21 7.86 7.02 7.41 (5.36, 9.46)
a)Wf* <B 80–89 Male 25.0 30.0 14.3 26.2 (17.0, 35.4)
47icy-@kg Female 27.9 25.6 18.3 26.7 (20.2, 33.3)
!HB,{+25 90 + Male 0.00 16.7 66.7 9.19 (0.00, 21.5)
a7d78
2~ Female 58.3 100.0 26.9 63.1 (44.4, 81.8)
@Sv
?Ar Age-standardized
dmF<J>[ (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)
^lQ-w|7( Figure 2. Visual acuity in eyes that had undergone cataract
tDi=T]-bt surgery, n = 249. h, Presenting; j, best-corrected.
Nq9(O#} Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia 81
:))AZ7_ The weighted prevalence of prior cataract surgery in the
#
=322bnO Visual Impairment Project (3.6%) was similar to the crude
&Owt:R)9~ rate in the Beaver Dam Eye Study4 (3.1%), but less than the
IXg${I}_Q crude rate in the Blue Mountains Eye Study6 (6.0%).
}~ + However, the age-standardized rate in the Blue Mountains
4XKg3l1 Eye Study (standardized to the age distribution of the urban
|H@M- Visual Impairment Project cohort) was found to be less than
=ecv;uu2 the Visual Impairment Project (standardized rate = 1.36%,
TVjY8L9'h 95% CL 1.25, 1.47). The incidence of cataract surgery in
AX1\L|tJS Australia has exceeded population growth.1 This is due,
wZOO#&X#r perhaps, to advances in surgical techniques and lens
Z
v~
A9bB implants that have changed the risk–benefit ratio.
-J[D:P.Z The Global Initiative for the Elimination of Avoidable
h{h=',o1 Blindness, sponsored by the World Health Organization,
I&cb5j]C states that cataract surgical services should be provided that
{$s:N&5 ‘have a high success rate in terms of visual outcome and
~q1
s4^J improved quality of life’,17 although the ‘high success rate’ is
95H`-A not defined. Population- and clinic-based studies conducted
w6E?TI in the United States have demonstrated marked improvement
C&;'Pw9H in visual acuity following cataract surgery.18–20 We
PDir?' found that 85% of eyes that had undergone cataract extraction
0<s)xaN>Y had visual acuity of 6/12 or better. Previously, we have
v:vA=R2 shown that participants with prevalent cataract in this
W&*{j;e9%I cohort are more likely to express dissatisfaction with their
>*_?^F_ current vision than participants without cataract or participants
JN8k x;@ with prior cataract surgery.21 In a national study in the
t7~mW$}O United States, researchers found that the change in patients’
)kd)v4
# ratings of their vision difficulties and satisfaction with their
=djzE
`)0 vision after cataract surgery were more highly related to
S9L
3/P] their change in visual functioning score than to their change
l s_i)X in visual acuity.19 Furthermore, improvement in visual function
C2b.([HE has been shown to be associated with improvement in
Ny~;"n overall quality of life.22
/stED{j, A recent review found that the incidence of visually
M9N|Ql significant posterior capsule opacification following
$]T7Iwk cataract surgery to be greater than 25%.23 We found 36%
kPxEGuL' capsulotomy in our population and that this was associated
2GD%=rP2] with visual acuity similar to that of eyes with a clear
T[7DJNdG6 capsule, but significantly better than that of eyes with an
o/[NUQSI opaque capsule.
L3W
^ip4 A number of studies have shown that the demand and
>?DrC / timing of cataract surgery vary according to visual acuity,
NT-du$!u degree of handicap and socioeconomic factors.8–10,24,25 We
\Js9U|lY have also shown previously that ophthalmologists are more
$DQ
-.WI likely to refer a patient for cataract surgery if the patient is
95+}NJ;r employed and less likely to refer a nursing home resident.7
/!E /9[V In the Visual Impairment Project, we did not find that any
'shOSB particular subgroup of the population was at greater risk of
Te.hXCFD having unoperated cataract. Universal access to health care
{<_}[} XY in Australia may explain the fact that people without
rLVAI#ci= Medicare are more likely to delay cataract operations in the
J:Qp(s-N^: USA,8 but not having private health insurance is not associated
r|P4|_No with unoperated cataract in Australia.
A1Zu^_y' In summary, cataract is a significant public health problem
9XoKOR( in that one in four people in their 80s will have had cataract
)GR^V=o7,Y surgery. The importance of age-related cataract surgery will
g\^(>Ouc increase further with the ageing of the population: the
~{N|("nB number of people over age 60 years is expected to double in
zxj!ihs< the next 20 years. Cataract surgery services are well
cAL&>T accessed by the Victorian population and the visual outcomes
M'g4alS of cataract surgery have been shown to be very good.
qD9B[s8 These data can be used to plan for age-related cataract
Cf+O7Y`^ surgical services in Australia in the future as the need for
@!F9}n
AP cataract extractions increases.
QF^AnB ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
d }]b The Visual Impairment Project was funded in part by grants
$]hf2Yr( from the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, the
%+'&$ National Health and Medical Research Council, the Ansell
D QZS%) Ophthalmology Foundation, the Dorothy Edols Estate and
Jv7M[SJ#x the Jack Brockhoff Foundation. Dr McCarty is the recipient
J6Kfz~% of a Wagstaff Fellowship in Ophthalmology from the Royal
QzS{2Y[OQ Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital.
KYeA= REFERENCES
&hF>
}O 1. Keeffe JE, Taylor HR. Cataract surgery in Australia 1985–94.
~ PP GU1 Aust. N.Z. J. Ophthalmol. 1996; 24: 313–17.
{=(4 2. Sperduto RD, Hiller R. The prevalence of nuclear, cortical,
*}0Q S@FN and posterior subcapsular lens opacities in a general population
nU`;MW/^w sample. Ophthalmology 1984; 91: 815–18.
q`{.2yV 3. Maraini G, Pasquini P, Sperduto RD et al. Distribution of lens
sS0psw1 opacities in the Italian-American case–control study of agerelated
!O.B, cataract. Ophthalmology 1990; 97: 752–6.
w"Z>F]YZ 4. Klein BEK, Klein R, Linton KLP. Prevalence of age-related
1ri#hm0x\ lens opacities in a population. The Beaver Dam Eye Study.
E+>;tLw3j Ophthalmology 1992; 99: 546–52.
tF;aB* 5. Guiffrè G, Giammanco R, Di Pace F, Ponte F. Casteldaccia eye
pLIBNo? study: prevalence of cataract in the adult and elderly population
ES+&e/G"ds of a Mediterranean town. Int. Ophthalmol. 1995; 18:
PJ_|=bn 363–71.
oL~Yrb%R 6. Mitchell P, Cumming RG, Attebo K, Panchapakesan J.
,iHt*SZ,* Prevalence of cataract in Australia. The Blue Mountains Eye
"C.$qk] Study. Ophthalmology 1997; 104: 581–8.
R@EFG%|`_ 7. Keeffe JE, McCarty CA, Chang WP, Steinberg EP, Taylor HR.
>Te{a*`"m: Relative importance of VA, patient concern and patient
0|U<T#t8? lifestyle on referral for cataract surgery. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis.
A/.cNen Sci. 1996; 37: S183.
O-|3k$'\z 8. Curbow B, Legro MW, Brenner MH. The influence of patientrelated
Ky=&C8b< variables in the timing of cataract extraction. Am. J.
:1s1wY3Y Ophthalmol. 1993; 115: 614–22.
D +oo5 9. Sletteberg OH, Høvding G, Bertelsen T. Do we operate too
n1LS*-
@ many cataracts? The referred cataract patients’ own appraisal
65}:2l2< of their need for surgery. Acta Ophthalmol. Scand. 1995; 73:
''(T3;^ +
77–80.
'.bMkty# 10. Escarce JJ. Would eliminating differences in physician practice
d,>l;l style reduce geographic variations in cataract surgery rates?
cEN^H Med. Care 1993; 31: 1106–18.
z C``G<TB 11. Livingston PM, Carson CA, Stanislavsky YL, Lee SE, Guest
Z# :Ww CS, Taylor HR. Methods for a population-based study of eye
f"-?%I*' disease: the Melbourne Visual Impairment Project. Ophthalmic
'J\%JAR@ Epidemiol. 1994; 1: 139–48.
bySw#h_ 12. Taylor HR, West SK. A simple system for the clinical grading
0lEIj/u of lens opacities. Lens Res. 1988; 5: 175–81.
yb]a p 82 McCarty et al.
@Wv*` 13. Cochran WG. Sampling Techniques. New York: John Wiley &
&2
g1Oy~ Sons, 1977; 249–73.
.$r(":A#) 14. Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical Methods in Cancer Research. Volume
rzex"}/ly II – the Design and Analysis of Cohort Studies. Lyon: International
%@IR7v~ Agency for Research on Cancer; 1987; 52–61.
SA
qX[c 15. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 1996 Census of Population and
AKHi$Bk Housing. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1997.
2yN~[,L 16. Livingston PM, Lee SE, McCarty CA, Taylor HR. A comparison
<?I~ + of participants with non-participants in a populationbased
APF-*/
K? epidemiologic study: the Melbourne Visual Impairment
Z)ObFJMG5 Project. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 1997; 4: 73–82.
_E1:3N| 17. Programme for the Prevention of Blindness. Global Initiative for the
#]C r
zLe Elimination of Avoidable Blindness. Geneva: World Health
9\dC8 Organization, 1997.
eQNYfWR 18. Applegate WB, Miller ST, Elam JT, Freeman JM, Wood TO,
+DU}f;O8v Gettlefinger TC. Impact of cataract surgery with lens implantation
JU~l on vision and physical function in elderly patients.
{?t=*l\S{w JAMA 1987; 257: 1064–6.
)Z]8SED 19. Steinberg EP, Tielsch JM, Schein OD et al. National Study of
H_jMl$f)j Cataract Surgery Outcomes. Variation in 4-month postoperative
J0{0B=d; outcomes as reflected in multiple outcome measures.
Y(-+>>j_ Ophthalmology 1994; 101:1131–41.
pE`BB{[@ 20. Klein BEK, Klein R, Moss SE. Change in visual acuity associated
X${k
with cataract surgery. The Beaver Dam Eye Study.
eE7+fMP{ Ophthalmology 1996; 103: 1727–31.
9 /0<Z_b2 21. McCarty CA, Keeffe JE, Taylor HR. The need for cataract
[]'BrG)! surgery: projections based on lens opacity, visual acuity, and
o8Tt|Lxb$8 personal concern. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1999; 83: 62–5.
&'i>5Y 22. Brenner MH, Curbow B, Javitt JC, Legro MW, Sommer A.
LB-4/G$ Vision change and quality of life in the elderly. Response to
%kyvtt cataract surgery and treatment of other ocular conditions.
0b4QcfB1[ Arch. Ophthalmol. 1993; 111: 680–5.
l].dOso$` 23. Schaumberg DA, Dana MR, Christen WG, Glynn RJ. A
-cOLgrmp systematic overview of the incidence of posterior capsule
N U\B opacification. Ophthalmology 1998; 105: 1213–21.
O$KLQ '0"n 24. Mordue A, Parkin DW, Baxter C, Fawcett G, Stewart M.
<AzvVSA, Thresholds for treatment in cataract surgery. J. Public Health
s<aJ pi{n4 Med. 1994; 16: 393–8.
iz&)FuOr 25. Norregaard JC, Bernth-Peterson P, Alonso J et al. Variations in
)%gigQZ+ indications for cataract surgery in the United States, Denmark,
}c$Z
lb Canada, and Spain: results from the International Cataract
w8c71C Surgery Outcomes Study. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1998; 82: 1107–11.