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: 2009-06-04   

Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia

ABSTRACT p=13 tQS<  
Purpose: To quantify the prevalence of cataract, the outcomes EY+/ foP  
of cataract surgery and the factors related to (S<Z@y+d  
unoperated cataract in Australia. tFj[>_d7  
Methods: Participants were recruited from the Visual {9mXJu$cc  
Impairment Project: a cluster, stratified sample of more than `wGP31Y.  
5000 Victorians aged 40 years and over. At examination Ei$?]~ &  
sites interviews, clinical examinations and lens photography ahJ -T@  
were performed. Cataract was defined in participants who ^lw0} i  
had: had previous cataract surgery, cortical cataract greater [v0[,K  
than 4/16, nuclear greater than Wilmer standard 2, or r [NI#wW  
posterior subcapsular greater than 1 mm2. BeR7LV  
Results: The participant group comprised 3271 Melbourne #k}x} rn<'  
residents, 403 Melbourne nursing home residents and 1473 _U Q|I|V#  
rural residents.The weighted rate of any cataract in Victoria 322)r$!"  
was 21.5%. The overall weighted rate of prior cataract k 'CM^,F&  
surgery was 3.79%. Two hundred and forty-nine eyes had fC4#b?Q  
had prior cataract surgery. Of these 249 procedures, 49 lhk=yVG3  
(20%) were aphakic, 6 (2.4%) had anterior chamber o x|K2A  
intraocular lenses and 194 (78%) had posterior chamber =P}BAJ  
intraocular lenses.Two hundred and eleven of these operated mQ$a^28=qR  
eyes (85%) had best-corrected visual acuity of 6/12 or \jR('5DcB  
better, the legal requirement for a driver’s license.Twentyseven [\_#n5  
(11%) had visual acuity of less than 6/18 (moderate /7`fg0A  
vision impairment). Complications of cataract surgery ^Fop/\E  
caused reduced vision in four of the 27 eyes (15%), or 1.9% - WEEnwZ  
of operated eyes. Three of these four eyes had undergone wO-](3A-8P  
intracapsular cataract extraction and the fourth eye had an g %ZKn  
opaque posterior capsule. No one had bilateral vision s:p6oEQ=J  
impairment as a result of cataract surgery. Surprisingly, no )NjxKSiU@  
particular demographic factors (such as age, gender, rural vG2&qjY1  
residence, occupation, employment status, health insurance U%PII>s'#  
status, ethnicity) were related to the presence of unoperated fR^ aFT  
cataract. Yw!(]8PYdU  
Conclusions: Although the overall prevalence of cataract is  ?|$IZ9  
quite high, no particular subgroup is systematically underserviced <+r<3ZBA  
in terms of cataract surgery. Overall, the results of $D %[}[2  
cataract surgery are very good, with the majority of eyes RZL :k;}5  
achieving driving vision following cataract extraction. r5s$#,O/&Q  
Key words: cataract extraction, health planning, health 'P`L?/_3  
services accessibility, prevalence )=9EShz!  
INTRODUCTION .ou#BWav/  
Cataract is the leading cause of blindness worldwide and, in USrBi[_ci\  
Australia, cataract extractions account for the majority of all i0jR~vF {B  
ophthalmic procedures.1 Over the period 1985–94, the rate >cdxe3I\  
of cataract surgery in Australia was twice as high as would be  y5!fbmf  
expected from the growth in the elderly population.1 2y;J 11\  
Although there have been a number of studies reporting [W*xPXr*  
the prevalence of cataract in various populations,2–6 there is nyRQ/.3  
little information about determinants of cataract surgery in H}f} Y8J{  
the population. A previous survey of Australian ophthalmologists ? 3'O  
showed that patient concern and lifestyle, rather Up*.z\|'y  
than visual acuity itself, are the primary factors for referral 2sXNVo8`w"  
for cataract surgery.7 This supports prior research which has v " Yo  
shown that visual acuity is not a strong predictor of need for #CcC& I :c  
cataract surgery.8,9 Elsewhere, socioeconomic status has O)EA2`)E  
been shown to be related to cataract surgery rates.10 m,1Hlp  
To appropriately plan health care services, information is ^:Hx.  
needed about the prevalence of age-related cataract in the gOSFvH8FU  
community as well as the factors associated with cataract r,FPTf  
surgery. The purpose of this study is to quantify the prevalence &X`zk  
of any cataract in Australia, to describe the factors -&UP[Mq  
related to unoperated cataract in the community and to =TcT`](o  
describe the visual outcomes of cataract surgery. #J_+ SL[  
METHODS %+F%C=GqI  
Study population +yO^,{8SE  
Details about the study methodology for the Visual 4eh~/o&h  
Impairment Project have been published previously.11 Q}qw` L1  
Briefly, cluster sampling within three strata was employed to piPx8jT`F  
recruit subjects aged 40 years and over to participate. .9'bi#:Cw  
Within the Melbourne Statistical Division, nine pairs of n5e1k y*9w  
census collector districts were randomly selected. Fourteen 1v2pPUH\  
nursing homes within a 5 km radius of these nine test sites ^{+,j}V_H  
were randomly chosen to recruit nursing home residents. ]\ DIJ>JZ  
Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology (2000) 28, 77–82 K H&o`U(}  
Original Article <{"Jy)Uf  
Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia -s5>GwZt  
Catherine A McCarty PhD, MPH, Mukesh B Nanjan PhD, Hugh R Taylor MD fHc/5uYW  
Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Hi5}s  
n Correspondence: Dr Cathy McCarty MPH, Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, 32 Gisborne Street, East Melbourne, ,2*x4Gycb  
Victoria 3002, Australia. Email: cathy@cera.unimelb.edu.au 23_\UTM}1  
78 McCarty et al. _ giZ'&l!  
Finally, four pairs of census collector districts in four rural L2P#5B!S  
Victorian communities were randomly selected to recruit rural 4Y!_tZ>  
residents. A household census was conducted to identify @9ndr$t  
eligible residents aged 40 years and over who had been a oD?c]}3  
resident at that address for at least 6 months. At the time of fJ8Q\lb<_  
the household census, basic information about age, sex, lQ!)0F  
country of birth, language spoken at home, education, use of UP?]5x>  
corrective spectacles and use of eye care services was collected. \Ng|bWR>LQ  
Eligible residents were then invited to attend a local o%1dbbh  
examination site for a more detailed interview and examination.  XeRbn  
The study protocol was approved by the Royal Victorian 1 ^q~NYTK  
Eye and Ear Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee. KH_~DZU*5  
Assessment of cataract \ &#pJB BG  
A standardized ophthalmic examination was performed after pjaDtNb  
pupil dilatation with one drop of 10% phenylephrine sPoH12?AL  
hydrochloride. Lens opacities were graded clinically at the 5L%\rH&N  
time of the examination and subsequently from photos using PY{])z3N  
the Wilmer cataract photo-grading system.12 Cortical and <-avC/M$d  
posterior subcapsular (PSC) opacities were assessed on +,$ SZO]  
retroillumination and measured as the proportion (in 1/16) 6B .x=  
of pupil circumference occupied by opacity. For this analysis, +D&aE$<  
cortical cataract was defined as 4/16 or greater opacity, E%tGwbi7  
PSC cataract was defined as opacity equal to or greater than AQR/nWwx  
1 mm2 and nuclear cataract was defined as opacity equal to mO|YX/>  
or greater than Wilmer standard 2,12 independent of visual co-dq\P  
acuity. Examples of the minimum opacities defined as cortical, L28DBjE)A  
nuclear and PSC cataract are presented in Figure 1. B!X;T9^d  
Bilateral congenital cataracts or cataracts secondary to ,ag:w<km  
intraocular inflammation or trauma were excluded from the 6Rcl HU  
analysis. Two cases of bilateral secondary cataract and eight ;{%R'  
cases of bilateral congenital cataract were excluded from the u:[vqlU  
analyses. X6`F<H`  
A Topcon® SL5 photo slit-lamp (Topcon America Corp., kl/eJN'S  
Paramus, NJ, USA) with a 0.1 mm slit beam of 9.0 mm in jXu)%<  
height set to an incident angle of 30° was used for examinations. 8a}et8df:  
Ektachrome® 200 ASA colour slide film (Eastman brXLx +H8  
Kodak Company, Rochester, NY, USA) was used to photograph KDQqN]rg  
the nuclear opacities. The cortical opacities were E!_mXjlPc  
photographed with an Oxford® retroillumination camera >3\($<YDZM  
(Marcher Enterprises Ltd, Hereford, UK) and T-MAX® 400 c@&-c[k^W  
film (Eastman Kodak). Photographs were graded separately IA$)E  
by two research assistants and discrepancies were adjudicated l%^VBv> 2  
by an independent reviewer. Any discrepancies n9p_D  
between the clinical grades and the photograph grades were +q N X/F  
resolved. Except in cases where photographs were missing, 5OS|Vp||b  
the photograph grades were used in the analyses. Photograph m. |__L  
grades were available for 4301 (84%) for cortical 9f/RD?(1O  
cataract, 4147 (81%) for nuclear cataract and 4303 (84%) J/ ! Mt  
for PSC cataract. Cataract status was classified according to 1B#Z<p  
the severity of the opacity in the worse eye. WBIJ9e 2~  
Assessment of risk factors miCW(mbO8  
A standardized questionnaire was used to obtain information |4lrVYG^K  
about education, employment and ethnic background.11 .PHz   
Specific information was elicited on the occurrence, duration pD )$O}  
and treatment of a number of medical conditions, V_.n G;  
including ocular trauma, arthritis, diabetes, gout, hypertension +2WvGRC  
and mental illness. Information about the use, dose and wy)I6`v  
duration of tobacco, alcohol, analgesics and steriods were SA1| 7  
collected, and a food frequency questionnaire was used to .&R j2d  
determine current consumption of dietary sources of antioxidants g OnVN6  
and use of vitamin supplements. kCoTz"Z-  
Data management and statistical analysis W\W|v?r  
Data were collected either by direct computer entry with a M1sR+e$"  
questionnaire programmed in Paradox© (Carel Corporation,  | D?lF  
Ottawa, Canada) with internal consistency checks, or Q8^fgI|  
on self-coding forms. Open-ended responses were coded at w)u6J ,  
a later time. Data that were entered on the self-coded forms Z\@m_ /g  
were entered into a computer with double data entry and EP ;TfWc}1  
reconciliation of any inconsistencies. Data range and consistency AlQE;4yX  
checks were performed on the entire data set.  H%AF,  
SAS© version 6.1 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina) was AzwG_XgM)  
employed for statistical analyses. ^9g+\W  
Ninety-five per cent confidence limits around the agespecific T{VdlgL  
rates were calculated according to Cochran13 to q!5 *) nw"  
account for the effect of the cluster sampling. Ninety-five g'F{;Ur  
per cent confidence limits around age-standardized rates $G_,$U !  
were calculated according to Breslow and Day.14 The strataspecific B< `'h  
data were weighted according to the 1996 9w%|Nk>=>  
Australian Bureau of Statistics census data15 to reflect the  YjV-70'  
cataract prevalence in the entire Victorian population. 4IW7^Pq`P  
Univariate analyses with Student’s t-tests and chi-squared pu"`*NL  
tests were first employed to evaluate risk factors for unoperated D)u 9Y  
cataract. Any factors with P < 0.10 were then fitted ]B;\?Tim  
into a backwards stepwise logistic regression model. For the %Q0J$eC  
Figure 1. Minimum levels of cortical (a), nuclear (b), and posterior subcapsular (c) cataract. K1F,M9 0]  
final multivariate models, P < 0.05 was considered statistically Hvm+Tr2@  
significant. Design effect was assessed through the use <}^W9 >u<  
of cluster-specific models and multivariate models. The L;n 2,b  
design effect was assumed to be additive and an adjustment c]y"5;V8  
made in the variance by adding the variance associated with 6__#n`  
the design effect prior to constructing the 95% confidence A=v^`a03I  
limits. }Z|uLXaz  
RESULTS T%%+v#+  
Study population f-V8/  
A total of 3271 (83%) of the Melbourne residents, 403 }WN0L?h.E  
(90%) Melbourne nursing home residents, and 1473 (92%) 3E!#?N|v  
rural residents participated. In general, non-participants did ed,w-;(n~  
not differ from participants.16 The study population was 2 us-s  
representative of the Victorian population and Australia as L=. 4x=%%  
a whole. =ZsM[wd  
The Melbourne residents ranged in age from 40 to m"2KAq61  
98 years (mean = 59) and 1511 (46%) were male. The k \|[ =  
Melbourne nursing home residents ranged in age from 46 to Z=ayVsJ3  
101 years (mean = 82) and 85 (21%) were men. The rural MI |51&m  
residents ranged in age from 40 to 103 years (mean = 60) /\%K7\  
and 701 (47.5%) were men. H$^b.5K  
Prevalence of cataract and prior cataract surgery X(-e-:B4;  
As would be expected, the rate of any cataract increases =: +k  
dramatically with age (Table 1). The weighted rate of any N0@&eX|$i4  
cataract in Victoria was 21.5% (95% CL 18.1, 24.9). >H@ zP8  
Although the rates varied somewhat between the three wff&ci28  
strata, they were not significantly different as the 95% confidence k,L,  
limits overlapped. The per cent of cataractous eyes \dyJ=tg  
with best-corrected visual acuity of less than 6/12 was 12.5% {gE19J3  
(65/520) for cortical cataract, 18% for nuclear cataract kIAWI;H{  
(97/534) and 14.4% (27/187) for PSC cataract. Cataract +$MNG   
surgery also rose dramatically with age. The overall <a-I-~  
weighted rate of prior cataract surgery in Victoria was 1cE3uA7  
3.79% (95% CL 2.97, 4.60) (Table 2). D6iHkDTg  
Risk factors for unoperated cataract 7$(>Z^ Em  
Cases of cataract that had not been removed were classified kL.JrbM"  
as unoperated cataract. Risk factor analyses for unoperated &qki NS  
cataract were not performed with the nursing home residents | x|#n  
as information about risk factor exposure was not '`q&UPg]  
available for this cohort. The following factors were assessed K/Q^8%Z  
in relation to unoperated cataract: age, sex, residence PaF`dnJ  
(urban/rural), language spoken at home (a measure of ethnic n'D1s:W^B  
integration), country of birth, parents’ country of birth (a bk E4{P"  
measure of ethnicity), years since migration, education, use 7Op6> i  
of ophthalmic services, use of optometric services, private X>w(^L*>  
health insurance status, duration of distance glasses use, +tL]qO BP  
glaucoma, age-related maculopathy and employment status. OWsK>egD  
In this cross sectional study it was not possible to assess the 2f1WT g)  
level of visual acuity that would predict a patient’s having xzg81sV7  
cataract surgery, as visual acuity data prior to cataract 1 dT1DcZ  
surgery were not available. WjxO M\?#  
The significant risk factors for unoperated cataract in univariate +0mU)4n/  
analyses were related to: whether a participant had >Ha tb bA  
ever seen an optometrist, seen an ophthalmologist or been @b\/\\{  
diagnosed with glaucoma; and participants’ employment V6Kw71'9  
status (currently employed) and age. These significant EnXNTat})  
factors were placed in a backwards stepwise logistic regression K1Ms  
model. The factors that remained significantly related OosxuAC(  
to unoperated cataract were whether participants had ever 1.YDIB||  
seen an ophthalmologist, seen an optometrist and been @K; 4'b~  
diagnosed with glaucoma. None of the demographic factors tgy*!B6a~  
were associated with unoperated cataract in the multivariate 8%]o6'd4  
model. iJE  $3  
The per cent of participants with unoperated cataract ]6NpHDip1  
who said that they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with K^j7T[pR  
Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia 79 '+LbFGrO3  
Table 1. Prevalence of any cataracta (excluding previous cataract surgery) by age, gender and cohort d 6 t#4!  
Age group Sex Urban Rural Nursing home Weighted total m,KG}KX  
(years) (%) (%) (%) VWqmqR%  
40–49 Male 2.56 4.04 0.00 3.00 (1.91, 4.08) Jhdo#}Ub  
Female 2.61 1.70 0.00 2.36 (1.61, 3.10) 5[3vu p?  
50–59 Male 7.69 6.94 0.00 7.47 (5.80, 9.15) lt\. )Y>4  
Female 6.67 7.56 0.00 6.92 (5.60, 8.24) Os--@5e  
60–69 Male 20.7 25.0 10.0 22.0 (18.1, 26.0) ? S^ U-.`  
Female 27.9 35.7 37.5 30.3 (26.0, 34.7) "J|{'k`  
70–79 Male 43.1 58.7 39.1 48.1 (41.2, 55.1) %O] ]La  
Female 58.6 66.2 55.6 61.0 (56.0, 65.9) (/TYET_H  
80–89 Male 74.0 89.3 92.0 79.3 (72.3, 86.3) 3Au3>q,  
Female 91.9 97.0 80.2 92.6 (86.4, 98.8) RV^ N4q4  
90 + Male 100.0 100.0 75.0 98.8 (96.2, 100.0) #[$^M:X.  
Female 100.0 100.0 93.8 98.6 (97.0, 100.0) 6v(?Lr`D  
Age-standardized SVKjhZK  
(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) 4#?Sxs  
aCortical > 4/16, nuclear > standard 2, posterior subcapsular > 1 mm2 s6=jHrdvv  
their current vision was 30% (290/683), compared with 27% 4mYJi#e6x  
(26/95) of participants with prior cataract surgery (chisquared, Msj(>U&}+  
1 d.f. = 0.25, P = 0.62). )Iu0MN&  
Outcomes of cataract surgery kucH=96  
Two hundred and forty-nine eyes had undergone prior +9EG6"..@H  
cataract surgery. Of these 249 operated eyes, 49 (20%) were  S9\_ODv  
left aphakic, 6 (2.4%) had anterior chamber intraocular 'Lm\ r+$F  
lenses and 194 (78%) had posterior chamber intraocular PydU.,^7  
lenses. The rate of capsulotomy in the eyes with intact u*n%cXY;J/  
posterior capsules was 36% (73/202). Fifteen per cent of Q8d-yJs&  
eyes (17/114) with a clear posterior capsule had bestcorrected E~]37!,\\9  
visual acuity of less than 6/12 compared with 43% f%#q}vK-  
of eyes (6/14) with opaque capsules, and 15% of eyes 2Kg-ZDK8  
(11/73) with prior capsulotomies (chi-squared, 2 d.f. = 7.21, o'Rr2,lVi  
P = 0.027). Ht`kmk;I)  
The percentage of eyes with best-corrected visual acuity r@WfZ  Z  
of 6/12 or better was 96% (302/314) for eyes without I(rZ(|^A  
cataract, 88% (1417/1609) for eyes with prevalent cataract 8&q[jxI@8  
and 85% (211/249) for eyes with operated cataract (chisquared, Uw!N;QsC  
2 d.f. = 22.3), P < 0.001). Twenty-seven of the YB` 1S  
operated eyes (11%) had visual acuities of less than 6/18 _|^cudRv  
(moderate vision impairment) (Fig. 2). A cause of this OV>JmYe1{/  
moderate visual impairment (but not the only cause) in four J ?y0R X  
(15%) eyes was secondary to cataract surgery. Three of these I9VU,8~  
four eyes had undergone intracapsular cataract extraction m7 $t$/g  
and the fourth eye had an opaque posterior capsule. No one Ea<kc[Q  
had bilateral vision impairment as a result of their cataract 'lWgHmE  
surgery. $R&K-;D/8  
DISCUSSION ; ElwF&"!X  
To our knowledge, this is the first paper to systematically #_pQS}$  
assess the prevalence of current cataract, previous cataract k]"DsN$  
surgery, predictors of unoperated cataract and the outcomes fVvB8[(;~  
of cataract surgery in a population-based sample. The Visual T8t_+| ( G  
Impairment Project is unique in that the sampling frame and P9 yg  
high response rate have ensured that the study population is =zsA@UM0  
representative of Australians aged 40 years and over. Therefore, -]~KQvIH!  
these data can be used to plan age-related cataract -\I".8"YE  
services throughout Australia. ; 8B )J<y  
We found the rate of any cataract in those over the age ~TfN*0  
of 40 years to be 22%. Although relatively high, this rate is EvGKcu  
significantly less than was reported in a number of previous Y'U]!c9  
studies,2,4,6 with the exception of the Casteldaccia Eye +@mgb4_  
Study.5 However, it is difficult to compare rates of cataract x%J.$o[<_  
between studies because of different methodologies and BenUyv1d  
cataract definitions employed in the various studies, as well ^&!iqK2o  
as the different age structures of the study populations. q /eo d  
Other studies have used less conservative definitions of c`s ]ciC  
cataract, thus leading to higher rates of cataract as defined.  /oC@:7  
In most large epidemiologic studies of cataract, visual acuity njGZ#{"eC  
has not been included in the definition of cataract. 79d< ,q;uR  
Therefore, the prevalence of cataract may not reflect the Eoh{+>:6  
actual need for cataract surgery in the community. iPK:gK3Q  
80 McCarty et al. b{(= C 3  
Table 2. Prevalence of previous cataract by age, gender and cohort ,7os3~Mk9  
Age group Gender Urban Rural Nursing home Weighted total |_u|Td(n  
(years) (%) (%) (%) Jq8:33s   
40–49 Male 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.80 (0.00, 1.81) <d ~IdK'\x  
Female 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ( b~Un=-@5a  
50–59 Male 0.68 0.58 0.00 0.65 (0.13, 1.17) ['_W <  
Female 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.41 (0.00, 1.00) (Y~gItej  
60–69 Male 2.12 7.59 0.00 3.80 (1.41, 6.19) w\%AR1,rs  
Female 2.11 3.51 0.00 2.54 (1.81, 3.26) fD~f_Wr  
70–79 Male 8.22 9.85 8.70 8.75 (6.38, 11.1) a" !r]=r  
Female 7.21 7.86 7.02 7.41 (5.36, 9.46) z+{Q(8'b]  
80–89 Male 25.0 30.0 14.3 26.2 (17.0, 35.4) % ou@Y`  
Female 27.9 25.6 18.3 26.7 (20.2, 33.3) %mNd9 ]<  
90 + Male 0.00 16.7 66.7 9.19 (0.00, 21.5) n0vhc;d  
Female 58.3 100.0 26.9 63.1 (44.4, 81.8) fK10{>E1  
Age-standardized @,; VMO  
(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) 6g 5Lf)yG  
Figure 2. Visual acuity in eyes that had undergone cataract &H:2TL!  
surgery, n = 249. h, Presenting; j, best-corrected. v O@7o  
Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia 81 qrkJ:  
The weighted prevalence of prior cataract surgery in the UUR` m  
Visual Impairment Project (3.6%) was similar to the crude bq"dKN`  
rate in the Beaver Dam Eye Study4 (3.1%), but less than the LLd5Z44v  
crude rate in the Blue Mountains Eye Study6 (6.0%). H{+[ ,l  
However, the age-standardized rate in the Blue Mountains @ !,W]?{  
Eye Study (standardized to the age distribution of the urban jPmp=qg"q  
Visual Impairment Project cohort) was found to be less than *x@.$=NF"  
the Visual Impairment Project (standardized rate = 1.36%, c+.? +g  
95% CL 1.25, 1.47). The incidence of cataract surgery in Q)93 +1]  
Australia has exceeded population growth.1 This is due, JqP~2,T  
perhaps, to advances in surgical techniques and lens { v#wU  
implants that have changed the risk–benefit ratio. 18AlQ+')?w  
The Global Initiative for the Elimination of Avoidable N6w!V]b  
Blindness, sponsored by the World Health Organization, }q=uI`  
states that cataract surgical services should be provided that RFT`r  
‘have a high success rate in terms of visual outcome and +J  <<me4  
improved quality of life’,17 although the ‘high success rate’ is MOIMW+n  
not defined. Population- and clinic-based studies conducted 8w9?n3z=}  
in the United States have demonstrated marked improvement  ^9 Pae)  
in visual acuity following cataract surgery.18–20 We / (?,S{]  
found that 85% of eyes that had undergone cataract extraction ^ SW!S_&Z2  
had visual acuity of 6/12 or better. Previously, we have a"whg~  
shown that participants with prevalent cataract in this \!s0H_RJY  
cohort are more likely to express dissatisfaction with their OJXK]dZ  
current vision than participants without cataract or participants 9 M!U@>  
with prior cataract surgery.21 In a national study in the SoNT12>  
United States, researchers found that the change in patients’ 5v5K}hx  
ratings of their vision difficulties and satisfaction with their C0[ Z>$  
vision after cataract surgery were more highly related to 6 u}c543  
their change in visual functioning score than to their change 7|^5E*8/  
in visual acuity.19 Furthermore, improvement in visual function 6 i'kc3w  
has been shown to be associated with improvement in N\W4LO6  
overall quality of life.22 f]DO2 r  
A recent review found that the incidence of visually Nj$h/P  
significant posterior capsule opacification following 0)E`6s#M  
cataract surgery to be greater than 25%.23 We found 36% k8O%gO  
capsulotomy in our population and that this was associated Ct0YwIR*  
with visual acuity similar to that of eyes with a clear .;jp 2^  
capsule, but significantly better than that of eyes with an #ByrX\  
opaque capsule. GCv*a[8?n  
A number of studies have shown that the demand and r>;6>ZMe  
timing of cataract surgery vary according to visual acuity, BiCC72oig  
degree of handicap and socioeconomic factors.8–10,24,25 We JQk][3Rv  
have also shown previously that ophthalmologists are more N^xk.O_TO  
likely to refer a patient for cataract surgery if the patient is '1[Bbs  
employed and less likely to refer a nursing home resident.7 m5\/7 VC  
In the Visual Impairment Project, we did not find that any /I@Dv?  
particular subgroup of the population was at greater risk of Mi2l BEu,  
having unoperated cataract. Universal access to health care &#DKB#.2  
in Australia may explain the fact that people without aOK,Mm:iO  
Medicare are more likely to delay cataract operations in the 0VwmV_6'<W  
USA,8 but not having private health insurance is not associated  v+qHH8  
with unoperated cataract in Australia. bZ_vb? n  
In summary, cataract is a significant public health problem z57|9$h}w  
in that one in four people in their 80s will have had cataract &HIG776  
surgery. The importance of age-related cataract surgery will J6W "t  
increase further with the ageing of the population: the GjGt' m*  
number of people over age 60 years is expected to double in i.Jk(%c  
the next 20 years. Cataract surgery services are well 9&7$oI$!J  
accessed by the Victorian population and the visual outcomes OF/DI)j3  
of cataract surgery have been shown to be very good. QZ^P2==x  
These data can be used to plan for age-related cataract VT~jgsY  
surgical services in Australia in the future as the need for  :bBMy\(u  
cataract extractions increases. sV5S>*A[  
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS HDV $y=oHh  
The Visual Impairment Project was funded in part by grants 1KWGQJ%%s  
from the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, the G$_=rHt_%  
National Health and Medical Research Council, the Ansell A57e]2_  
Ophthalmology Foundation, the Dorothy Edols Estate and )Ao F-&,w  
the Jack Brockhoff Foundation. Dr McCarty is the recipient ?PSVVU q,Z  
of a Wagstaff Fellowship in Ophthalmology from the Royal $(JB"%S8c  
Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital. t!JD]j>q  
REFERENCES  ZXL  
1. Keeffe JE, Taylor HR. Cataract surgery in Australia 1985–94. g?=|kp  
Aust. N.Z. J. Ophthalmol. 1996; 24: 313–17. =V(|3?N  
2. Sperduto RD, Hiller R. The prevalence of nuclear, cortical, q/l@J3p[qm  
and posterior subcapsular lens opacities in a general population Al1BnFB  
sample. Ophthalmology 1984; 91: 815–18. NwB;9ZhZ  
3. Maraini G, Pasquini P, Sperduto RD et al. Distribution of lens @}B,l.Tj  
opacities in the Italian-American case–control study of agerelated f1}am<  
cataract. Ophthalmology 1990; 97: 752–6. ;&8  
4. Klein BEK, Klein R, Linton KLP. Prevalence of age-related LA%t'n h  
lens opacities in a population. The Beaver Dam Eye Study. 1j":j%9M  
Ophthalmology 1992; 99: 546–52. 0^ IHBN?9  
5. Guiffrè G, Giammanco R, Di Pace F, Ponte F. Casteldaccia eye oM4Q_An  
study: prevalence of cataract in the adult and elderly population s`E^1jC  
of a Mediterranean town. Int. Ophthalmol. 1995; 18: vE=)qn=a  
363–71. ZlxJY%o eu  
6. Mitchell P, Cumming RG, Attebo K, Panchapakesan J. r|W 2I,P  
Prevalence of cataract in Australia. The Blue Mountains Eye 1y)|m63&  
Study. Ophthalmology 1997; 104: 581–8. ? pkg1F7  
7. Keeffe JE, McCarty CA, Chang WP, Steinberg EP, Taylor HR. a$K.Or}  
Relative importance of VA, patient concern and patient nC;2wQ6aO  
lifestyle on referral for cataract surgery. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. 9=wt9` ?  
Sci. 1996; 37: S183. RCvf@[y 4  
8. Curbow B, Legro MW, Brenner MH. The influence of patientrelated KNZN2N)wR  
variables in the timing of cataract extraction. Am. J. $Z8=QlG>  
Ophthalmol. 1993; 115: 614–22. ~ d!F|BH4  
9. Sletteberg OH, Høvding G, Bertelsen T. Do we operate too Q\ AM] U  
many cataracts? The referred cataract patients’ own appraisal RV2s@<0p  
of their need for surgery. Acta Ophthalmol. Scand. 1995; 73: 5`?'}_[Yj  
77–80. B-`,h pp  
10. Escarce JJ. Would eliminating differences in physician practice 2kS]:4)T  
style reduce geographic variations in cataract surgery rates? V7\@g  
Med. Care 1993; 31: 1106–18. ZI8*PX%2  
11. Livingston PM, Carson CA, Stanislavsky YL, Lee SE, Guest 7Y>17=|  
CS, Taylor HR. Methods for a population-based study of eye ee0)%hc1t  
disease: the Melbourne Visual Impairment Project. Ophthalmic jZX2)#a!  
Epidemiol. 1994; 1: 139–48. _3lci  
12. Taylor HR, West SK. A simple system for the clinical grading ~H)s>6>#v  
of lens opacities. Lens Res. 1988; 5: 175–81. @D3Y}nR:  
82 McCarty et al. {+&qC\YF  
13. Cochran WG. Sampling Techniques. New York: John Wiley & {xGM_vH1  
Sons, 1977; 249–73. 4%(\y"T  
14. Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical Methods in Cancer Research. Volume e/p2| 4;  
II – the Design and Analysis of Cohort Studies. Lyon: International !&n'1gJ)kd  
Agency for Research on Cancer; 1987; 52–61. {vf"`#Q9  
15. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 1996 Census of Population and S-$N!G~!  
Housing. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1997. HL^+:`,  
16. Livingston PM, Lee SE, McCarty CA, Taylor HR. A comparison ky^p\dMh  
of participants with non-participants in a populationbased #Oeb3U  
epidemiologic study: the Melbourne Visual Impairment a->;K+  
Project. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 1997; 4: 73–82. 4w\@D>@}H  
17. Programme for the Prevention of Blindness. Global Initiative for the %)|pUa&  
Elimination of Avoidable Blindness. Geneva: World Health r}1.=a  
Organization, 1997. 7l%]/`Y-  
18. Applegate WB, Miller ST, Elam JT, Freeman JM, Wood TO, zv^km5by  
Gettlefinger TC. Impact of cataract surgery with lens implantation jOYa}jm?  
on vision and physical function in elderly patients. ]f3eiHg*  
JAMA 1987; 257: 1064–6. ' F)93SwU  
19. Steinberg EP, Tielsch JM, Schein OD et al. National Study of v|WTm#  
Cataract Surgery Outcomes. Variation in 4-month postoperative xE2sb*  
outcomes as reflected in multiple outcome measures. WB7pdSZ  
Ophthalmology 1994; 101:1131–41. .]0u#fz0y  
20. Klein BEK, Klein R, Moss SE. Change in visual acuity associated q$|Wxnz  
with cataract surgery. The Beaver Dam Eye Study. "x+o(jOy  
Ophthalmology 1996; 103: 1727–31. #s\HiO$BT  
21. McCarty CA, Keeffe JE, Taylor HR. The need for cataract ,#u"$Hz8p  
surgery: projections based on lens opacity, visual acuity, and R7q\^Yzo  
personal concern. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1999; 83: 62–5. %|tDb  
22. Brenner MH, Curbow B, Javitt JC, Legro MW, Sommer A. i; qb\  
Vision change and quality of life in the elderly. Response to GV+K] KDI  
cataract surgery and treatment of other ocular conditions. !R;NV|.eI6  
Arch. Ophthalmol. 1993; 111: 680–5. ``zgw\f[%  
23. Schaumberg DA, Dana MR, Christen WG, Glynn RJ. A bc?\lD$ $  
systematic overview of the incidence of posterior capsule J|uxn<E<>  
opacification. Ophthalmology 1998; 105: 1213–21. '@ $L}C#OI  
24. Mordue A, Parkin DW, Baxter C, Fawcett G, Stewart M. [eWZ^Eh"I  
Thresholds for treatment in cataract surgery. J. Public Health a'[Ah2}3r<  
Med. 1994; 16: 393–8. k3HPY}-  
25. Norregaard JC, Bernth-Peterson P, Alonso J et al. Variations in /tG0"1{  
indications for cataract surgery in the United States, Denmark, /#lqv)s'  
Canada, and Spain: results from the International Cataract z!M8lpI M  
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:
2+6=? 正确答案:8
按"Ctrl+Enter"直接提交