ABSTRACT
.K1E1Z_ Purpose: To quantify the prevalence of cataract, the outcomes
!#I/be] of cataract surgery and the factors related to
9sj W unoperated cataract in Australia.
"EYjY-> Methods: Participants were recruited from the Visual
B9Q.s Impairment Project: a cluster, stratified sample of more than
Gy6qLM 5000 Victorians aged 40 years and over. At examination
_`{{39 F sites interviews, clinical examinations and lens photography
)v{41sM+ were performed. Cataract was defined in participants who
/_OZ1jX had: had previous cataract surgery, cortical cataract greater
>MWpYp than 4/16, nuclear greater than Wilmer standard 2, or
tW:/R@@ posterior subcapsular greater than 1 mm2.
:2)1vQH0L Results: The participant group comprised 3271 Melbourne
HL}~W}!j residents, 403 Melbourne nursing home residents and 1473
[F)/mN rural residents.The weighted rate of any cataract in Victoria
,e FQ}&^A was 21.5%. The overall weighted rate of prior cataract
XH:gQ 9FD surgery was 3.79%. Two hundred and forty-nine eyes had
ho]!G4
98 had prior cataract surgery. Of these 249 procedures, 49
EKd3$(^ (20%) were aphakic, 6 (2.4%) had anterior chamber
px}7If intraocular lenses and 194 (78%) had posterior chamber
hY=
s9\ intraocular lenses.Two hundred and eleven of these operated
uWB:"&!^ eyes (85%) had best-corrected visual acuity of 6/12 or
(d'j'U:C better, the legal requirement for a driver’s license.Twentyseven
T$^>Fiz{Se (11%) had visual acuity of less than 6/18 (moderate
B.mbKntK)R vision impairment). Complications of cataract surgery
U 'CfP9= caused reduced vision in four of the 27 eyes (15%), or 1.9%
Qyv'nx0= of operated eyes. Three of these four eyes had undergone
.5!sOOs$P intracapsular cataract extraction and the fourth eye had an
45)ogg2 opaque posterior capsule. No one had bilateral vision
<duBwkiG impairment as a result of cataract surgery. Surprisingly, no
mfngbFa1 particular demographic factors (such as age, gender, rural
XiRT|%j residence, occupation, employment status, health insurance
U +*
oI * status, ethnicity) were related to the presence of unoperated
6A$_&? cataract.
RO%tuU,- Conclusions: Although the overall prevalence of cataract is
Wj4^W<IO quite high, no particular subgroup is systematically underserviced
Oj"pj:fB in terms of cataract surgery. Overall, the results of
3
|K=%jr[ cataract surgery are very good, with the majority of eyes
G9i)nWr achieving driving vision following cataract extraction.
5 dfe@$ Key words: cataract extraction, health planning, health
K_At
U/ services accessibility, prevalence
E/~"j INTRODUCTION
M<A;IOpR+ Cataract is the leading cause of blindness worldwide and, in
lrs0^@.+ Australia, cataract extractions account for the majority of all
rL%]S&M9 ophthalmic procedures.1 Over the period 1985–94, the rate
HPt
Tv}l of cataract surgery in Australia was twice as high as would be
s;B
j
7] expected from the growth in the elderly population.1
! fi &@k Although there have been a number of studies reporting
NK7H,V}T the prevalence of cataract in various populations,2–6 there is
|
V.S.'
little information about determinants of cataract surgery in
&/>;LgN the population. A previous survey of Australian ophthalmologists
Q7~'![(a showed that patient concern and lifestyle, rather
dGbU{#"3s than visual acuity itself, are the primary factors for referral
~\IF9! for cataract surgery.7 This supports prior research which has
^))PCn_zb shown that visual acuity is not a strong predictor of need for
MzEm*`< cataract surgery.8,9 Elsewhere, socioeconomic status has
zwM"`z been shown to be related to cataract surgery rates.10
IL~]m?'V( To appropriately plan health care services, information is
<i\UMrD]`: needed about the prevalence of age-related cataract in the
pU?{0xZH community as well as the factors associated with cataract
CfPXn0I surgery. The purpose of this study is to quantify the prevalence
dT5J-70Fl of any cataract in Australia, to describe the factors
L;/9L[s, related to unoperated cataract in the community and to
:3f-9aRC! describe the visual outcomes of cataract surgery.
U9 1 &| METHODS
y;Qy"-)qb Study population
@%6)^]m}
r Details about the study methodology for the Visual
UZzNVIXA% Impairment Project have been published previously.11
J.1O/Pw!.a Briefly, cluster sampling within three strata was employed to
uQH%.A recruit subjects aged 40 years and over to participate.
M{
C6rm| Within the Melbourne Statistical Division, nine pairs of
p86~~rvq[ census collector districts were randomly selected. Fourteen
#v{ Y=$L nursing homes within a 5 km radius of these nine test sites
iV5}U2Vh were randomly chosen to recruit nursing home residents.
cNe0x2Z$? Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology (2000) 28, 77–82
h S4.3]ei Original Article
EJ1Bq>u7 Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia
/+>)"D6' Catherine A McCarty PhD, MPH, Mukesh B Nanjan PhD, Hugh R Taylor MD
=v.{JV# Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
DhZ:#mM{ n Correspondence: Dr Cathy McCarty MPH, Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, 32 Gisborne Street, East Melbourne,
YPu9Q Victoria 3002, Australia. Email:
cathy@cera.unimelb.edu.au lK0s=4c{ 78 McCarty et al.
WrNLGkt Finally, four pairs of census collector districts in four rural
*'6s63)I2 Victorian communities were randomly selected to recruit rural
! 0^;;' residents. A household census was conducted to identify
KE<kj$
eligible residents aged 40 years and over who had been a
T'E]
i!$ resident at that address for at least 6 months. At the time of
UEzsDJu the household census, basic information about age, sex,
X2qv^G, country of birth, language spoken at home, education, use of
~8TF*3[}[ corrective spectacles and use of eye care services was collected.
^o YPyk`9 Eligible residents were then invited to attend a local
wzd`l?o, examination site for a more detailed interview and examination.
_g[-=y{Bb The study protocol was approved by the Royal Victorian
+IrZ
;&oy Eye and Ear Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee.
#b'N}2'p#V Assessment of cataract
9e!vA6Fx A standardized ophthalmic examination was performed after
n@hl2M6.x9 pupil dilatation with one drop of 10% phenylephrine
[& ^RP,N~ hydrochloride. Lens opacities were graded clinically at the
Oa!
m
time of the examination and subsequently from photos using
#Q}_e7t the Wilmer cataract photo-grading system.12 Cortical and
&R,9+c posterior subcapsular (PSC) opacities were assessed on
\6o\+OQk retroillumination and measured as the proportion (in 1/16)
f8=]oa] of pupil circumference occupied by opacity. For this analysis,
)s)_XL cortical cataract was defined as 4/16 or greater opacity,
,X68xk.' PSC cataract was defined as opacity equal to or greater than
w~|1Wd<v 1 mm2 and nuclear cataract was defined as opacity equal to
"k:=Y7Dx or greater than Wilmer standard 2,12 independent of visual
G(/D
tY] acuity. Examples of the minimum opacities defined as cortical,
yS!(Ap nuclear and PSC cataract are presented in Figure 1.
oZN'HT Bilateral congenital cataracts or cataracts secondary to
'N\&<dT> intraocular inflammation or trauma were excluded from the
o_f-GO analysis. Two cases of bilateral secondary cataract and eight
[ ny6W9 cases of bilateral congenital cataract were excluded from the
@pFj9[N analyses.
:U'Cor
H A Topcon® SL5 photo slit-lamp (Topcon America Corp.,
| kXm}K Paramus, NJ, USA) with a 0.1 mm slit beam of 9.0 mm in
Y/fJQ6DY height set to an incident angle of 30° was used for examinations.
2 0tO#{Li Ektachrome® 200 ASA colour slide film (Eastman
wvN `R Kodak Company, Rochester, NY, USA) was used to photograph
I4=Xb^Ux the nuclear opacities. The cortical opacities were
[=uIb._Wv photographed with an Oxford® retroillumination camera
;a
r><w (Marcher Enterprises Ltd, Hereford, UK) and T-MAX® 400
o&SSvW film (Eastman Kodak). Photographs were graded separately
jVWK0Zba by two research assistants and discrepancies were adjudicated
},@``&e by an independent reviewer. Any discrepancies
e,gyQjJR between the clinical grades and the photograph grades were
I:l01W; resolved. Except in cases where photographs were missing,
[
MyE2^ the photograph grades were used in the analyses. Photograph
Z>P*@S,6G grades were available for 4301 (84%) for cortical
xZ .!d.rn cataract, 4147 (81%) for nuclear cataract and 4303 (84%)
56}X/u for PSC cataract. Cataract status was classified according to
}m-"8\_D the severity of the opacity in the worse eye.
ZZxk]D< Assessment of risk factors
I&VTW8jB A standardized questionnaire was used to obtain information
l\OLyQ about education, employment and ethnic background.11
!t#F/C Specific information was elicited on the occurrence, duration
G`0V)S and treatment of a number of medical conditions,
Cu;5RSr2Z including ocular trauma, arthritis, diabetes, gout, hypertension
3Q^fVn$tk and mental illness. Information about the use, dose and
N2C7[z+l` duration of tobacco, alcohol, analgesics and steriods were
UL$}{2N,_ collected, and a food frequency questionnaire was used to
`
G9 l determine current consumption of dietary sources of antioxidants
4rg2y] and use of vitamin supplements.
88s/Q0l Data management and statistical analysis
c9"r6j2m5 Data were collected either by direct computer entry with a
b97w^ah4gJ questionnaire programmed in Paradox© (Carel Corporation,
8^/I>0EZ Ottawa, Canada) with internal consistency checks, or
#%0Bx3uM on self-coding forms. Open-ended responses were coded at
.B2]xfo"` a later time. Data that were entered on the self-coded forms
4GdX/6C. were entered into a computer with double data entry and
Yr.sm!xA reconciliation of any inconsistencies. Data range and consistency
>Gml4vGK checks were performed on the entire data set.
~^jq(:d) SAS© version 6.1 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina) was
8,P-
7^ employed for statistical analyses.
-a,-J]d0+ Ninety-five per cent confidence limits around the agespecific
q[q?hQ
/b rates were calculated according to Cochran13 to
aT!'}GjL account for the effect of the cluster sampling. Ninety-five
YHkcWz per cent confidence limits around age-standardized rates
W!Hm~9fz
were calculated according to Breslow and Day.14 The strataspecific
3<? data were weighted according to the 1996
fWfk[(M'9 Australian Bureau of Statistics census data15 to reflect the
!G^L/?z3 cataract prevalence in the entire Victorian population.
. o7m! Univariate analyses with Student’s t-tests and chi-squared
J%09^5:-z tests were first employed to evaluate risk factors for unoperated
xsd_Uu
* cataract. Any factors with P < 0.10 were then fitted
00v&lQBW into a backwards stepwise logistic regression model. For the
|8>3`w! Figure 1. Minimum levels of cortical (a), nuclear (b), and posterior subcapsular (c) cataract.
"Ve.cP,7( final multivariate models, P < 0.05 was considered statistically
0"2=n.## significant. Design effect was assessed through the use
drzL.@h| of cluster-specific models and multivariate models. The
Q_* "SRz design effect was assumed to be additive and an adjustment
p&+;w made in the variance by adding the variance associated with
(" LQll9 the design effect prior to constructing the 95% confidence
eP*lI<NQ1 limits.
Ee4&g
<X. RESULTS
|f~@8|MQP+ Study population
*Qugv^- A total of 3271 (83%) of the Melbourne residents, 403
}ci#
> (90%) Melbourne nursing home residents, and 1473 (92%)
y_\p=0t8 rural residents participated. In general, non-participants did
'YNT8w/3 not differ from participants.16 The study population was
;"(foY"L representative of the Victorian population and Australia as
'cY` w a whole.
:ba5iMa The Melbourne residents ranged in age from 40 to
Cmc3k,t 98 years (mean = 59) and 1511 (46%) were male. The
0a-:<zm Melbourne nursing home residents ranged in age from 46 to
T&Lb<'f 101 years (mean = 82) and 85 (21%) were men. The rural
CPNL
94x residents ranged in age from 40 to 103 years (mean = 60)
h/~n\0,J/ and 701 (47.5%) were men.
<n]x#0p Prevalence of cataract and prior cataract surgery
@V03a
)6,h As would be expected, the rate of any cataract increases
.'Y]R3\M+ dramatically with age (Table 1). The weighted rate of any
MEwo}
=B cataract in Victoria was 21.5% (95% CL 18.1, 24.9).
0GJn_@hr Although the rates varied somewhat between the three
>JiltF7H0 strata, they were not significantly different as the 95% confidence
]Dw]p!@ limits overlapped. The per cent of cataractous eyes
7Hm3;P. with best-corrected visual acuity of less than 6/12 was 12.5%
)/z@vY (65/520) for cortical cataract, 18% for nuclear cataract
lo[.&GD (97/534) and 14.4% (27/187) for PSC cataract. Cataract
r$2P;Cxj surgery also rose dramatically with age. The overall
_q~=~nub weighted rate of prior cataract surgery in Victoria was
,?L2wl[ 3.79% (95% CL 2.97, 4.60) (Table 2).
qh`t- Risk factors for unoperated cataract
D9z|VIw8 Cases of cataract that had not been removed were classified
qAw x2fPu as unoperated cataract. Risk factor analyses for unoperated
)I3NeKWz cataract were not performed with the nursing home residents
9/nn)soC3 as information about risk factor exposure was not
XGl+S available for this cohort. The following factors were assessed
y\a1iy in relation to unoperated cataract: age, sex, residence
^k]XEW{PG (urban/rural), language spoken at home (a measure of ethnic
9=U
kV\m) integration), country of birth, parents’ country of birth (a
t^w"w`v\u measure of ethnicity), years since migration, education, use
rb|U;)C of ophthalmic services, use of optometric services, private
;Rv!k&Df health insurance status, duration of distance glasses use,
E2m8UBS glaucoma, age-related maculopathy and employment status.
VY3& In this cross sectional study it was not possible to assess the
;cQ6g`
bM\ level of visual acuity that would predict a patient’s having
DCZ\6WY1G) cataract surgery, as visual acuity data prior to cataract
zzyHoZJP surgery were not available.
NgY=&W, The significant risk factors for unoperated cataract in univariate
\Cii1\R= analyses were related to: whether a participant had
R00eisd ever seen an optometrist, seen an ophthalmologist or been
5=Di<! a; diagnosed with glaucoma; and participants’ employment
$g
sxO!G status (currently employed) and age. These significant
mFi&YpHu3 factors were placed in a backwards stepwise logistic regression
|>#{[wko model. The factors that remained significantly related
kOed ]>H to unoperated cataract were whether participants had ever
A -b
[>}_ seen an ophthalmologist, seen an optometrist and been
`5C,N!d8X diagnosed with glaucoma. None of the demographic factors
svq<)hAf< were associated with unoperated cataract in the multivariate
](s'L8(x model.
pim!.=vN/U The per cent of participants with unoperated cataract
lMBLIB]i who said that they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with
`tn{ei Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia 79
(,8$V\ Table 1. Prevalence of any cataracta (excluding previous cataract surgery) by age, gender and cohort
v+X)Qmzf~ Age group Sex Urban Rural Nursing home Weighted total
tfGHea)M (years) (%) (%) (%)
Zd')57{ 40–49 Male 2.56 4.04 0.00 3.00 (1.91, 4.08)
-&-Ma,M? Female 2.61 1.70 0.00 2.36 (1.61, 3.10)
c\Q7"!e 50–59 Male 7.69 6.94 0.00 7.47 (5.80, 9.15)
pNKhc#
-w Female 6.67 7.56 0.00 6.92 (5.60, 8.24)
,d {"m)r< 60–69 Male 20.7 25.0 10.0 22.0 (18.1, 26.0)
dfij|>:*0 Female 27.9 35.7 37.5 30.3 (26.0, 34.7)
"t~ 70–79 Male 43.1 58.7 39.1 48.1 (41.2, 55.1)
tV{4"Ij9[ Female 58.6 66.2 55.6 61.0 (56.0, 65.9)
CW,Wx: Y 80–89 Male 74.0 89.3 92.0 79.3 (72.3, 86.3)
'7iSp= Female 91.9 97.0 80.2 92.6 (86.4, 98.8)
6x%h6<#xh* 90 + Male 100.0 100.0 75.0 98.8 (96.2, 100.0)
n6BQk2l Female 100.0 100.0 93.8 98.6 (97.0, 100.0)
BEre*J Age-standardized
-De9_0#R (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)
_N{RVeO aCortical > 4/16, nuclear > standard 2, posterior subcapsular > 1 mm2
$3s@}vLd their current vision was 30% (290/683), compared with 27%
~wkj&yVT (26/95) of participants with prior cataract surgery (chisquared,
4X+ifZO 1 d.f. = 0.25, P = 0.62).
iq
e%=%ZR Outcomes of cataract surgery
1$p2}Bf{n Two hundred and forty-nine eyes had undergone prior
F!]lU`z)= cataract surgery. Of these 249 operated eyes, 49 (20%) were
4UW_Do left aphakic, 6 (2.4%) had anterior chamber intraocular
%)0*&a 4 lenses and 194 (78%) had posterior chamber intraocular
`s8{C
b=}1 lenses. The rate of capsulotomy in the eyes with intact
F7O(Cy"1 posterior capsules was 36% (73/202). Fifteen per cent of
&i$ldR eyes (17/114) with a clear posterior capsule had bestcorrected
/Z@tv.f visual acuity of less than 6/12 compared with 43%
tX>
G,hw of eyes (6/14) with opaque capsules, and 15% of eyes
vJ-q*qM1 (11/73) with prior capsulotomies (chi-squared, 2 d.f. = 7.21,
b"#WxgaF P = 0.027).
A*}.EClH The percentage of eyes with best-corrected visual acuity
P dhEQ}H of 6/12 or better was 96% (302/314) for eyes without
*rIk:FehLB cataract, 88% (1417/1609) for eyes with prevalent cataract
(K)] qNH and 85% (211/249) for eyes with operated cataract (chisquared,
OslL~< 2 d.f. = 22.3), P < 0.001). Twenty-seven of the
?MgUY)X operated eyes (11%) had visual acuities of less than 6/18
>76\nGO (moderate vision impairment) (Fig. 2). A cause of this
g!+|I moderate visual impairment (but not the only cause) in four
#py[ (15%) eyes was secondary to cataract surgery. Three of these
^`)) C; four eyes had undergone intracapsular cataract extraction
uFPF!Ern and the fourth eye had an opaque posterior capsule. No one
T^~5n6 had bilateral vision impairment as a result of their cataract
~
==>pj surgery.
OVhE??# DISCUSSION
r?Wk<>%> To our knowledge, this is the first paper to systematically
bdF.qO9
assess the prevalence of current cataract, previous cataract
ak |WW]R surgery, predictors of unoperated cataract and the outcomes
b/{t|io{ of cataract surgery in a population-based sample. The Visual
#7q7PYG4 Impairment Project is unique in that the sampling frame and
H=Y{rq @ high response rate have ensured that the study population is
]2\VweV representative of Australians aged 40 years and over. Therefore,
Db1pW=66: these data can be used to plan age-related cataract
L&%s[ services throughout Australia.
\V*xWS We found the rate of any cataract in those over the age
h >s!K9 of 40 years to be 22%. Although relatively high, this rate is
!`M|C?b significantly less than was reported in a number of previous
( 8c9 /7h studies,2,4,6 with the exception of the Casteldaccia Eye
twlk-2yT! Study.5 However, it is difficult to compare rates of cataract
m|:_]/*qE between studies because of different methodologies and
TG+VEL |T cataract definitions employed in the various studies, as well
)>`G as the different age structures of the study populations.
KNLfp1! Other studies have used less conservative definitions of
Wu_kx2h cataract, thus leading to higher rates of cataract as defined.
L G1r]2 In most large epidemiologic studies of cataract, visual acuity
-QmO1U has not been included in the definition of cataract.
W>p-u6u%E| Therefore, the prevalence of cataract may not reflect the
2g>SHS@1> actual need for cataract surgery in the community.
q~vDz]\G 80 McCarty et al.
rjP L+T_ Table 2. Prevalence of previous cataract by age, gender and cohort
66I"=: Age group Gender Urban Rural Nursing home Weighted total
(3#Cl
1]f (years) (%) (%) (%)
:E@3Vl#U 40–49 Male 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.80 (0.00, 1.81)
uec!RKE Female 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (
7e#?e+5+A 50–59 Male 0.68 0.58 0.00 0.65 (0.13, 1.17)
nCj2N,mT Female 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.41 (0.00, 1.00)
p-zXp K" 60–69 Male 2.12 7.59 0.00 3.80 (1.41, 6.19)
|<.lW Female 2.11 3.51 0.00 2.54 (1.81, 3.26)
d~:!#uWyFk 70–79 Male 8.22 9.85 8.70 8.75 (6.38, 11.1)
-:Ia^{YN Female 7.21 7.86 7.02 7.41 (5.36, 9.46)
L.1_(3NG 80–89 Male 25.0 30.0 14.3 26.2 (17.0, 35.4)
P3nb2. Female 27.9 25.6 18.3 26.7 (20.2, 33.3)
6u`)QUmItg 90 + Male 0.00 16.7 66.7 9.19 (0.00, 21.5)
mqAWL:VvQ7 Female 58.3 100.0 26.9 63.1 (44.4, 81.8)
n1&% e6XhO Age-standardized
SOi*SwQ8 (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)
8rMX9qTO@ Figure 2. Visual acuity in eyes that had undergone cataract
OZTPOz. surgery, n = 249. h, Presenting; j, best-corrected.
/~Z?27F6@ Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia 81
gUpb
4uN The weighted prevalence of prior cataract surgery in the
bBS,-vN Visual Impairment Project (3.6%) was similar to the crude
J]G?
Rc rate in the Beaver Dam Eye Study4 (3.1%), but less than the
_:-ha?W$;y crude rate in the Blue Mountains Eye Study6 (6.0%).
AQ+]|XYo_ However, the age-standardized rate in the Blue Mountains
Lv'D^'I Eye Study (standardized to the age distribution of the urban
#L{OV)a< Visual Impairment Project cohort) was found to be less than
T:IW%?M the Visual Impairment Project (standardized rate = 1.36%,
a e*Mf7 95% CL 1.25, 1.47). The incidence of cataract surgery in
_%B^9Yl3( Australia has exceeded population growth.1 This is due,
qZh1`\G perhaps, to advances in surgical techniques and lens
mN>h5G>a implants that have changed the risk–benefit ratio.
5fm?Lxr&? The Global Initiative for the Elimination of Avoidable
:bWUuXVtJ Blindness, sponsored by the World Health Organization,
8&Oa_{1+Q states that cataract surgical services should be provided that
.GsO.#p{ ‘have a high success rate in terms of visual outcome and
zD(`B+ improved quality of life’,17 although the ‘high success rate’ is
a_ `[Lj not defined. Population- and clinic-based studies conducted
o4%y>d) in the United States have demonstrated marked improvement
r; xLP in visual acuity following cataract surgery.18–20 We
\uXcLhXN found that 85% of eyes that had undergone cataract extraction
+\|Iu;w had visual acuity of 6/12 or better. Previously, we have
QR
Ei7@t shown that participants with prevalent cataract in this
*_KFW@bC: cohort are more likely to express dissatisfaction with their
W3;#fa:[L current vision than participants without cataract or participants
6X\ 2GC9 with prior cataract surgery.21 In a national study in the
FI<q@HF United States, researchers found that the change in patients’
* 0|IXGr ratings of their vision difficulties and satisfaction with their
Q^q1ns;r vision after cataract surgery were more highly related to
Ma\Gb+> their change in visual functioning score than to their change
0%Z]h?EYy| in visual acuity.19 Furthermore, improvement in visual function
V`RNM%Y has been shown to be associated with improvement in
L9@&2?k overall quality of life.22
Vm df8[5 A recent review found that the incidence of visually
`d[1`P1i[ significant posterior capsule opacification following
Y=
]dvc cataract surgery to be greater than 25%.23 We found 36%
XO9M_*Va capsulotomy in our population and that this was associated
n f.wCtf]. with visual acuity similar to that of eyes with a clear
;i"*Ll>Q) capsule, but significantly better than that of eyes with an
Ezi-VGjr]
opaque capsule.
Hw|AA?,0- A number of studies have shown that the demand and
6}(J6T46M[ timing of cataract surgery vary according to visual acuity,
@0eHS
+ degree of handicap and socioeconomic factors.8–10,24,25 We
_9?I A have also shown previously that ophthalmologists are more
k $fGom likely to refer a patient for cataract surgery if the patient is
W?We6.%
employed and less likely to refer a nursing home resident.7
eXkujjSw" In the Visual Impairment Project, we did not find that any
Z1h
] particular subgroup of the population was at greater risk of
d @*GUmJ having unoperated cataract. Universal access to health care
wBInq~K_ in Australia may explain the fact that people without
/c$\X<b); Medicare are more likely to delay cataract operations in the
`- \/$M9s= USA,8 but not having private health insurance is not associated
o d7]tOK9 with unoperated cataract in Australia.
8
:o<ry In summary, cataract is a significant public health problem
k` {@pt. in that one in four people in their 80s will have had cataract
37q@rD
m2 surgery. The importance of age-related cataract surgery will
6SC,;p= increase further with the ageing of the population: the
e }*0ghKI number of people over age 60 years is expected to double in
Y];
Ycj; the next 20 years. Cataract surgery services are well
/{{UP- accessed by the Victorian population and the visual outcomes
8LI-gp\ 2 of cataract surgery have been shown to be very good.
`T2$4 >! These data can be used to plan for age-related cataract
8*c3| surgical services in Australia in the future as the need for
bpkwn<7- cataract extractions increases.
NJ MJ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
S|zW^|YU The Visual Impairment Project was funded in part by grants
&(a(W22O from the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, the
IhiGP
{ National Health and Medical Research Council, the Ansell
GI7=xh Ophthalmology Foundation, the Dorothy Edols Estate and
y#<MVH the Jack Brockhoff Foundation. Dr McCarty is the recipient
kL90&nP of a Wagstaff Fellowship in Ophthalmology from the Royal
A;J MV+2N Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital.
vZ#!uU^a: REFERENCES
3p*-tBOO 1. Keeffe JE, Taylor HR. Cataract surgery in Australia 1985–94.
7yt=]1 Aust. N.Z. J. Ophthalmol. 1996; 24: 313–17.
M0c9pE 2. Sperduto RD, Hiller R. The prevalence of nuclear, cortical,
{S<>&?XB and posterior subcapsular lens opacities in a general population
w#
*1 /N sample. Ophthalmology 1984; 91: 815–18.
R
4wr 3. Maraini G, Pasquini P, Sperduto RD et al. Distribution of lens
*fO{ a opacities in the Italian-American case–control study of agerelated
l+y}4k=/ cataract. Ophthalmology 1990; 97: 752–6.
m~],nl
4. Klein BEK, Klein R, Linton KLP. Prevalence of age-related
1j\aH&)GH lens opacities in a population. The Beaver Dam Eye Study.
p8+/\Ee]B Ophthalmology 1992; 99: 546–52.
{6d b{ ay_ 5. Guiffrè G, Giammanco R, Di Pace F, Ponte F. Casteldaccia eye
\;]kYO} study: prevalence of cataract in the adult and elderly population
m=b~i^@ of a Mediterranean town. Int. Ophthalmol. 1995; 18:
5M23/=
N 363–71.
q9dLHi<1 6. Mitchell P, Cumming RG, Attebo K, Panchapakesan J.
WjM>kWv Prevalence of cataract in Australia. The Blue Mountains Eye
XNH4==4 Study. Ophthalmology 1997; 104: 581–8.
mEQ!-p 7. Keeffe JE, McCarty CA, Chang WP, Steinberg EP, Taylor HR.
\,sg)^w@ Relative importance of VA, patient concern and patient
,fnsE^}.U lifestyle on referral for cataract surgery. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis.
5]7&IDA]]9 Sci. 1996; 37: S183.
{@r*+~C3 8. Curbow B, Legro MW, Brenner MH. The influence of patientrelated
`<j_[(5yb variables in the timing of cataract extraction. Am. J.
i~& c| Ophthalmol. 1993; 115: 614–22.
bj"z8 kP 9. Sletteberg OH, Høvding G, Bertelsen T. Do we operate too
jxy1
many cataracts? The referred cataract patients’ own appraisal
/qxJgoa of their need for surgery. Acta Ophthalmol. Scand. 1995; 73:
=J@`0H" 77–80.
Yb=6C3l@ 10. Escarce JJ. Would eliminating differences in physician practice
#@Ujx_F style reduce geographic variations in cataract surgery rates?
p\U*;'hv Med. Care 1993; 31: 1106–18.
D{AFL.r{ 11. Livingston PM, Carson CA, Stanislavsky YL, Lee SE, Guest
{rPk3 CS, Taylor HR. Methods for a population-based study of eye
2q%K)h disease: the Melbourne Visual Impairment Project. Ophthalmic
JCQ:+eqt Epidemiol. 1994; 1: 139–48.
_
K/swT{f 12. Taylor HR, West SK. A simple system for the clinical grading
8Z:Ezg3^ of lens opacities. Lens Res. 1988; 5: 175–81.
M\yHUS6N 82 McCarty et al.
8Inx/>eOI 13. Cochran WG. Sampling Techniques. New York: John Wiley &
S!7g) Sons, 1977; 249–73.
>%c*
Xe 14. Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical Methods in Cancer Research. Volume
9Q@*0- II – the Design and Analysis of Cohort Studies. Lyon: International
[A_r1g&_ Agency for Research on Cancer; 1987; 52–61.
5.k}{{+ 15. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 1996 Census of Population and
E&%jeR Housing. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1997.
e}Q>\t45 16. Livingston PM, Lee SE, McCarty CA, Taylor HR. A comparison
>Zdi5')
5 of participants with non-participants in a populationbased
baIbf@t/ epidemiologic study: the Melbourne Visual Impairment
>h[(w Project. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 1997; 4: 73–82.
_j 5N=I{U 17. Programme for the Prevention of Blindness. Global Initiative for the
n4>cERfa Elimination of Avoidable Blindness. Geneva: World Health
E
0`[G]*G Organization, 1997.
,xj3w#`zaf 18. Applegate WB, Miller ST, Elam JT, Freeman JM, Wood TO,
M]B3vPA/v Gettlefinger TC. Impact of cataract surgery with lens implantation
~@YQ,\Y on vision and physical function in elderly patients.
b8HE."*t JAMA 1987; 257: 1064–6.
RH=$h! 5 19. Steinberg EP, Tielsch JM, Schein OD et al. National Study of
Bj&_IDs4 Cataract Surgery Outcomes. Variation in 4-month postoperative
~BQV]BJ7 outcomes as reflected in multiple outcome measures.
F(E<,l2[ Ophthalmology 1994; 101:1131–41.
bpnv &EG 20. Klein BEK, Klein R, Moss SE. Change in visual acuity associated
QmHwn)Ly with cataract surgery. The Beaver Dam Eye Study.
,$BgR2^ Ophthalmology 1996; 103: 1727–31.
qM*S*,s 21. McCarty CA, Keeffe JE, Taylor HR. The need for cataract
0T1ko,C!,e surgery: projections based on lens opacity, visual acuity, and
v\'rXy personal concern. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1999; 83: 62–5.
lY->ucS %P 22. Brenner MH, Curbow B, Javitt JC, Legro MW, Sommer A.
enPLaiJ'|q Vision change and quality of life in the elderly. Response to
jjX%$Hr cataract surgery and treatment of other ocular conditions.
e^Aa! Arch. Ophthalmol. 1993; 111: 680–5.
+Tp%5+E 23. Schaumberg DA, Dana MR, Christen WG, Glynn RJ. A
i[8NO$tN1) systematic overview of the incidence of posterior capsule
%awVVt{aG opacification. Ophthalmology 1998; 105: 1213–21.
ret0z| 24. Mordue A, Parkin DW, Baxter C, Fawcett G, Stewart M.
r/^tzH's Thresholds for treatment in cataract surgery. J. Public Health
>j)
w\i Med. 1994; 16: 393–8.
joY1(Y 25. Norregaard JC, Bernth-Peterson P, Alonso J et al. Variations in
PlF!cr7:4 indications for cataract surgery in the United States, Denmark,
&q"'_4 Canada, and Spain: results from the International Cataract
/<6ywLD Surgery Outcomes Study. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1998; 82: 1107–11.