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 {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 VlEkT9^:  
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$~+xjM  
better, the legal requirement for a driver’s license.Twentyseven IkvH8E  
(11%) had visual acuity of less than 6/18 (moderate zt8ZJlNK  
vision impairment). Complications of cataract surgery WM#!X!Vo  
caused reduced vision in four of the 27 eyes (15%), or 1.9% @.0,k a,X  
of operated eyes. Three of these four eyes had undergone I}:/v$btM  
intracapsular cataract extraction and the fourth eye had an s[g1e i9  
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. `S VR_  
Key words: cataract extraction, health planning, health FUH1Z+9  
services accessibility, prevalence >!$4nxq2>  
INTRODUCTION xj}N;FWo  
Cataract is the leading cause of blindness worldwide and, in Yc %eTh  
Australia, cataract extractions account for the majority of all a}fW3+>  
ophthalmic procedures.1 Over the period 1985–94, the rate T4UY%E!0  
of cataract surgery in Australia was twice as high as would be !b 7H  
expected from the growth in the elderly population.1 5pDxFs=v  
Although there have been a number of studies reporting kTzZj|l^\  
the prevalence of cataract in various populations,2–6 there is @<Y Za$`  
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$ph}  
been shown to be related to cataract surgery rates.10 |.,y M|  
To appropriately plan health care services, information is isaT0__8  
needed about the prevalence of age-related cataract in the &38Fj'l  
community as well as the factors associated with cataract /r)d4=1E  
surgery. The purpose of this study is to quantify the prevalence CocvEoE*z  
of any cataract in Australia, to describe the factors ~v5tx  
related to unoperated cataract in the community and to _Q7)FK  
describe the visual outcomes of cataract surgery. m{1By/U  
METHODS {d3r>Ub)7d  
Study population Z8:iaP)  
Details about the study methodology for the Visual `aC#s3[  
Impairment Project have been published previously.11 aWit^dp  
Briefly, cluster sampling within three strata was employed to O[ N{&\$  
recruit subjects aged 40 years and over to participate. *z(.D\{%  
Within the Melbourne Statistical Division, nine pairs of Pukq{/27  
census collector districts were randomly selected. Fourteen 5Po.&eS  
nursing homes within a 5 km radius of these nine test sites KsHMAp3  
were randomly chosen to recruit nursing home residents. SmRU!C$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${W  
Victoria 3002, Australia. Email: cathy@cera.unimelb.edu.au ~#g Vs*K  
78 McCarty et al. =n;ileGm+^  
Finally, four pairs of census collector districts in four rural 5:YtBdP  
Victorian communities were randomly selected to recruit rural /423!g0 Q  
residents. A household census was conducted to identify )[/+j"F   
eligible residents aged 40 years and over who had been a c|I{U[(U  
resident at that address for at least 6 months. At the time of 9<xe%V=ki  
the household census, basic information about age, sex, a1s=t_wT  
country of birth, language spoken at home, education, use of &oAuh?kTq  
corrective spectacles and use of eye care services was collected. 9g>ay-W[(  
Eligible residents were then invited to attend a local (}}BZ S&.  
examination site for a more detailed interview and examination. G66vzwO   
The study protocol was approved by the Royal Victorian R|Ykez!D  
Eye and Ear Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee. TG'A'wXxy  
Assessment of cataract b`1P%OjC  
A standardized ophthalmic examination was performed after :^px1  
pupil dilatation with one drop of 10% phenylephrine B:Msn)C~  
hydrochloride. Lens opacities were graded clinically at the zaX30e:R  
time of the examination and subsequently from photos using ;@Ls "+g  
the Wilmer cataract photo-grading system.12 Cortical and j_Dx4*v g  
posterior subcapsular (PSC) opacities were assessed on =:5yRP  
retroillumination and measured as the proportion (in 1/16) 4,FuQ}  
of pupil circumference occupied by opacity. For this analysis, y%iN9 -t  
cortical cataract was defined as 4/16 or greater opacity, F!N;4J5u  
PSC cataract was defined as opacity equal to or greater than Kh3*\xT  
1 mm2 and nuclear cataract was defined as opacity equal to CkIICx  
or greater than Wilmer standard 2,12 independent of visual _G[5S-0 [  
acuity. Examples of the minimum opacities defined as cortical, R$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 }hEBX:-  
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>zuH e  
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(VQD>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~O y_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. !yoj ZG 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. ~y B[}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 j cx/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 %q ja:'k  
moderate visual impairment (but not the only cause) in four du'$JtZo  
(15%) eyes was secondary to cataract surgery. Three of these &[RC4^;\V  
four eyes had undergone intracapsular cataract extraction bmT  J  
and the fourth eye had an opaque posterior capsule. No one a[9;Okm #  
had bilateral vision impairment as a result of their cataract 1Rp|*>  
surgery. 3P-#NL  
DISCUSSION bIWcL$}4Q  
To our knowledge, this is the first paper to systematically 8yztVdh  
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 $RA"NIZ:!  
Impairment Project is unique in that the sampling frame and {' r(P&  
high response rate have ensured that the study population is k"Sw,"e>+  
representative of Australians aged 40 years and over. Therefore, C: e}}8i  
these data can be used to plan age-related cataract bdcuO)3  
services throughout Australia. uc7Y8iO  
We found the rate of any cataract in those over the age 3)dT+lZ  
of 40 years to be 22%. Although relatively high, this rate is DlIfr6F  
significantly less than was reported in a number of previous T<!`~#kM  
studies,2,4,6 with the exception of the Casteldaccia Eye }T(|\ X  
Study.5 However, it is difficult to compare rates of cataract T 6phD8#  
between studies because of different methodologies and ]]`+aF0  
cataract definitions employed in the various studies, as well +m>Kb edl  
as the different age structures of the study populations. (G$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 TJX  
(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) r_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 C f+O7Y`^  
surgical services in Australia in the future as the need for @!F9}n AP  
cataract extractions increases. QF^An B  
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 J6Kf z~%  
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. ~ PPGU1  
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. _E1:3 N|  
17. Programme for the Prevention of Blindness. Global Initiative for the #]Cr 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 %kyvt t  
cataract surgery and treatment of other ocular conditions. 0b4QcfB1[  
Arch. Ophthalmol. 1993; 111: 680–5. l].dOso$`  
23. Schaumberg DA, Dana MR, Christen WG, Glynn RJ. A -cOLg rmp  
systematic overview of the incidence of posterior capsule N U\B  
opacification. Ophthalmology 1998; 105: 1213–21. O$KLQ'0"n  
24. Mordue A, Parkin DW, Baxter C, Fawcett G, Stewart M. <Azv VSA,  
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 )%gi gQZ+  
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.
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:
4+6=? 正确答案:10
按"Ctrl+Enter"直接提交