ABSTRACT
vmL0H)q Purpose: To quantify the prevalence of cataract, the outcomes
65g\WB+/ of cataract surgery and the factors related to
}VyDX14j unoperated cataract in Australia.
nq
r[HFWs Methods: Participants were recruited from the Visual
Z:5e:M Impairment Project: a cluster, stratified sample of more than
58WL8xu 5000 Victorians aged 40 years and over. At examination
bKi
V<&Z5d sites interviews, clinical examinations and lens photography
z7> were performed. Cataract was defined in participants who
%I?uO(
@ had: had previous cataract surgery, cortical cataract greater
]H%y7kH8 than 4/16, nuclear greater than Wilmer standard 2, or
8eQ 4[wJY posterior subcapsular greater than 1 mm2.
qauk,t Results: The participant group comprised 3271 Melbourne
S }mqK|! residents, 403 Melbourne nursing home residents and 1473
r+ k5Bk' rural residents.The weighted rate of any cataract in Victoria
(@[c;+x was 21.5%. The overall weighted rate of prior cataract
+O2T% surgery was 3.79%. Two hundred and forty-nine eyes had
rISg`- had prior cataract surgery. Of these 249 procedures, 49
>Ta|#]{ (20%) were aphakic, 6 (2.4%) had anterior chamber
E:!?A@Fy intraocular lenses and 194 (78%) had posterior chamber
>+LFu?y intraocular lenses.Two hundred and eleven of these operated
IXc"gO eyes (85%) had best-corrected visual acuity of 6/12 or
J{`G= better, the legal requirement for a driver’s license.Twentyseven
<XDYnWz (11%) had visual acuity of less than 6/18 (moderate
rzsAnLxo vision impairment). Complications of cataract surgery
h0_od/D1r caused reduced vision in four of the 27 eyes (15%), or 1.9%
krnxM7y of operated eyes. Three of these four eyes had undergone
;Hk{bz( intracapsular cataract extraction and the fourth eye had an
Ahv %Q%m%2 opaque posterior capsule. No one had bilateral vision
~|QhWgq impairment as a result of cataract surgery. Surprisingly, no
D;*P'%_Z particular demographic factors (such as age, gender, rural
Te_%r9P|2 residence, occupation, employment status, health insurance
}V:ZGP#!' status, ethnicity) were related to the presence of unoperated
`\Z7It?aDs cataract.
x/7kcj!O Conclusions: Although the overall prevalence of cataract is
VI_8r5o quite high, no particular subgroup is systematically underserviced
1g<jr. in terms of cataract surgery. Overall, the results of
N/CL?Z>c cataract surgery are very good, with the majority of eyes
dX^ ^
@7 achieving driving vision following cataract extraction.
Q#M@!& Key words: cataract extraction, health planning, health
RKru
hF services accessibility, prevalence
~$w9L998+ INTRODUCTION
KUD&vqx3 Cataract is the leading cause of blindness worldwide and, in
N5K\h}'% Australia, cataract extractions account for the majority of all
IPHZ~'M ophthalmic procedures.1 Over the period 1985–94, the rate
aq,Ab~V] of cataract surgery in Australia was twice as high as would be
|f67aN expected from the growth in the elderly population.1
/hF@Xh%hY Although there have been a number of studies reporting
{mO QRAKl the prevalence of cataract in various populations,2–6 there is
Q7#Yw"#G! little information about determinants of cataract surgery in
h[*:\P` the population. A previous survey of Australian ophthalmologists
rvEX;8TS showed that patient concern and lifestyle, rather
^GL>xlZ( than visual acuity itself, are the primary factors for referral
Rq@M~;p for cataract surgery.7 This supports prior research which has
Te d1Ky2O shown that visual acuity is not a strong predictor of need for
M1HGXdN* B cataract surgery.8,9 Elsewhere, socioeconomic status has
wa1Qt been shown to be related to cataract surgery rates.10
U,Q To appropriately plan health care services, information is
O
n/q&h5 needed about the prevalence of age-related cataract in the
@h=r;N#/`P community as well as the factors associated with cataract
H3#rFO"C* surgery. The purpose of this study is to quantify the prevalence
[ikW3 '99, of any cataract in Australia, to describe the factors
$ VTk0J-W related to unoperated cataract in the community and to
ZVIlVuZ}
describe the visual outcomes of cataract surgery.
nG4}8 METHODS
W!Fu7a Study population
:q34KP Details about the study methodology for the Visual
O_4j"0 Impairment Project have been published previously.11
qw<~v?{|C Briefly, cluster sampling within three strata was employed to
sD=iHO
Am recruit subjects aged 40 years and over to participate.
}'u0Q6Obj Within the Melbourne Statistical Division, nine pairs of
AGGNJ4m census collector districts were randomly selected. Fourteen
4{6XZ_J1 nursing homes within a 5 km radius of these nine test sites
pq +~| were randomly chosen to recruit nursing home residents.
$+WMKv@< Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology (2000) 28, 77–82
]@A31P4t| Original Article
\f4JIsZ-& Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia
:{=2ih-} Catherine A McCarty PhD, MPH, Mukesh B Nanjan PhD, Hugh R Taylor MD
8i~n;AhDs Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
ana?;NvC n Correspondence: Dr Cathy McCarty MPH, Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, 32 Gisborne Street, East Melbourne,
uRnSwJ"hE Victoria 3002, Australia. Email:
cathy@cera.unimelb.edu.au FA$1&Fu3Y 78 McCarty et al.
fI }v}L^ Finally, four pairs of census collector districts in four rural
|Ye%HpTTv Victorian communities were randomly selected to recruit rural
~]78R!HJ residents. A household census was conducted to identify
/SKgN{tWe eligible residents aged 40 years and over who had been a
MVkO >s resident at that address for at least 6 months. At the time of
s)5W:`MH? the household census, basic information about age, sex,
+
0 |d2_]E country of birth, language spoken at home, education, use of
Sp\
7 corrective spectacles and use of eye care services was collected.
!b{7gUjyI Eligible residents were then invited to attend a local
$E6b
u4I examination site for a more detailed interview and examination.
bR}=bp4K The study protocol was approved by the Royal Victorian
-+Gd <U$ Eye and Ear Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee.
0u=FlQ
}h Assessment of cataract
JG* Lc@ Q A standardized ophthalmic examination was performed after
&uLC{Ik} pupil dilatation with one drop of 10% phenylephrine
fl*>m, hydrochloride. Lens opacities were graded clinically at the
2>'/!/+R time of the examination and subsequently from photos using
!_pryNcb the Wilmer cataract photo-grading system.12 Cortical and
]vUTb9>{? posterior subcapsular (PSC) opacities were assessed on
|yYu!+U retroillumination and measured as the proportion (in 1/16)
[*z`p;n2D of pupil circumference occupied by opacity. For this analysis,
VhX~sJ1%Gp cortical cataract was defined as 4/16 or greater opacity,
G21cJi* PSC cataract was defined as opacity equal to or greater than
,_!MI+o0 1 mm2 and nuclear cataract was defined as opacity equal to
S T25RJC or greater than Wilmer standard 2,12 independent of visual
_
su$]s acuity. Examples of the minimum opacities defined as cortical,
Pj7n_&*/ nuclear and PSC cataract are presented in Figure 1.
]x^v;r~ Bilateral congenital cataracts or cataracts secondary to
(C60HbL
intraocular inflammation or trauma were excluded from the
65AG
#O5R analysis. Two cases of bilateral secondary cataract and eight
D/TEx2.=J3 cases of bilateral congenital cataract were excluded from the
f) @-X! analyses.
?)mM]2%% A Topcon® SL5 photo slit-lamp (Topcon America Corp.,
nEbJ,#>Z Paramus, NJ, USA) with a 0.1 mm slit beam of 9.0 mm in
qb?9i-( height set to an incident angle of 30° was used for examinations.
QTbv3# Ektachrome® 200 ASA colour slide film (Eastman
+"F 9yb Kodak Company, Rochester, NY, USA) was used to photograph
vY'E+M"+@ the nuclear opacities. The cortical opacities were
%2z]2@ photographed with an Oxford® retroillumination camera
2-x#|9
(Marcher Enterprises Ltd, Hereford, UK) and T-MAX® 400
ZhYOz film (Eastman Kodak). Photographs were graded separately
<imIg
t|`2 by two research assistants and discrepancies were adjudicated
%:vM D by an independent reviewer. Any discrepancies
fLR\@f between the clinical grades and the photograph grades were
iES?}K/q resolved. Except in cases where photographs were missing,
.7v
.DR> the photograph grades were used in the analyses. Photograph
8}<4f|? grades were available for 4301 (84%) for cortical
N_eZz#); cataract, 4147 (81%) for nuclear cataract and 4303 (84%)
w;4FN'
for PSC cataract. Cataract status was classified according to
q;L~5q."E the severity of the opacity in the worse eye.
\aB>Q"
pS Assessment of risk factors
jk-e/C A standardized questionnaire was used to obtain information
Yk!TQY4 about education, employment and ethnic background.11
YMfjTt@Q Specific information was elicited on the occurrence, duration
NB[(O# and treatment of a number of medical conditions,
b%"Lwqdr7 including ocular trauma, arthritis, diabetes, gout, hypertension
+`s
%-}-r and mental illness. Information about the use, dose and
y8|?J\eRy duration of tobacco, alcohol, analgesics and steriods were
j@4AY}[tX collected, and a food frequency questionnaire was used to
WZ]f \S determine current consumption of dietary sources of antioxidants
f%JC;Y and use of vitamin supplements.
U-0A}@N Data management and statistical analysis
Q Data were collected either by direct computer entry with a
h(1o!$EU2 questionnaire programmed in Paradox© (Carel Corporation,
ic]b"ItD Ottawa, Canada) with internal consistency checks, or
oo{3-+ ? on self-coding forms. Open-ended responses were coded at
hEv}g a later time. Data that were entered on the self-coded forms
g7 r_jj%ow were entered into a computer with double data entry and
g&oAa;~o reconciliation of any inconsistencies. Data range and consistency
n%Df6zQ<@s checks were performed on the entire data set.
;LjTsF' SAS© version 6.1 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina) was
*sbZ{{]e employed for statistical analyses.
YN >k5\M_v Ninety-five per cent confidence limits around the agespecific
a/v!W@Zz} rates were calculated according to Cochran13 to
QaYUcma~n account for the effect of the cluster sampling. Ninety-five
;"N4Yflz per cent confidence limits around age-standardized rates
TC$)::C1 were calculated according to Breslow and Day.14 The strataspecific
(S
d8S`xO data were weighted according to the 1996
1#m'u5L Australian Bureau of Statistics census data15 to reflect the
swGp{wJ cataract prevalence in the entire Victorian population.
xq<3*Bcw Univariate analyses with Student’s t-tests and chi-squared
9KgGK cy% tests were first employed to evaluate risk factors for unoperated
+thkx$o cataract. Any factors with P < 0.10 were then fitted
jqeR{yo&0b into a backwards stepwise logistic regression model. For the
ooW; s<6 Figure 1. Minimum levels of cortical (a), nuclear (b), and posterior subcapsular (c) cataract.
XVwJr""+ final multivariate models, P < 0.05 was considered statistically
D{) K00mm significant. Design effect was assessed through the use
a?dUJt of cluster-specific models and multivariate models. The
.nG14i7C design effect was assumed to be additive and an adjustment
tzn+
M0' made in the variance by adding the variance associated with
NZW)$c' the design effect prior to constructing the 95% confidence
-\dcs? limits.
DY(pU/q RESULTS
r|,_qNrw Study population
Nm.G,6<J A total of 3271 (83%) of the Melbourne residents, 403
HZJ)q`1E (90%) Melbourne nursing home residents, and 1473 (92%)
nd4Z5=X rural residents participated. In general, non-participants did
Dm+[cA"I not differ from participants.16 The study population was
0`y*7.Ip representative of the Victorian population and Australia as
\)'5V!B|s a whole.
`Hp=1a The Melbourne residents ranged in age from 40 to
# X`t~Y' 98 years (mean = 59) and 1511 (46%) were male. The
f'WRszrF Melbourne nursing home residents ranged in age from 46 to
> f*-9 101 years (mean = 82) and 85 (21%) were men. The rural
fuQk}OW{ residents ranged in age from 40 to 103 years (mean = 60)
"PePiW(i+ and 701 (47.5%) were men.
%5
yP^BL0 Prevalence of cataract and prior cataract surgery
9pMXjsE As would be expected, the rate of any cataract increases
dzRnI* dramatically with age (Table 1). The weighted rate of any
rf=oH
} cataract in Victoria was 21.5% (95% CL 18.1, 24.9).
]]eI80u[ Although the rates varied somewhat between the three
o5;|14O strata, they were not significantly different as the 95% confidence
k((kx: limits overlapped. The per cent of cataractous eyes
HrS-o= with best-corrected visual acuity of less than 6/12 was 12.5%
qp{3I("_ (65/520) for cortical cataract, 18% for nuclear cataract
dh-?_|" (97/534) and 14.4% (27/187) for PSC cataract. Cataract
yW]>v>l:Eg surgery also rose dramatically with age. The overall
9
K~X+
N\ weighted rate of prior cataract surgery in Victoria was
CsX@u# 3.79% (95% CL 2.97, 4.60) (Table 2).
;;}}uW= Risk factors for unoperated cataract
qE*h UzA Cases of cataract that had not been removed were classified
9WT{~PGj as unoperated cataract. Risk factor analyses for unoperated
9ePR6WS4 cataract were not performed with the nursing home residents
?Ll1B3f as information about risk factor exposure was not
RH^;M-' available for this cohort. The following factors were assessed
Q6$^lRNOpk in relation to unoperated cataract: age, sex, residence
sB=s
.`9 (urban/rural), language spoken at home (a measure of ethnic
MZ:Ty,pw:O integration), country of birth, parents’ country of birth (a
S76xEL measure of ethnicity), years since migration, education, use
"\O{!Hj8 of ophthalmic services, use of optometric services, private
;%mdSaf health insurance status, duration of distance glasses use,
H8A=]Gq
glaucoma, age-related maculopathy and employment status.
bW2Msv/H In this cross sectional study it was not possible to assess the
T~naAP level of visual acuity that would predict a patient’s having
H><!
C cataract surgery, as visual acuity data prior to cataract
L"'L@A|U surgery were not available.
yHs'E4V`$ The significant risk factors for unoperated cataract in univariate
6.M!WK{+ analyses were related to: whether a participant had
BWLeitS/ ever seen an optometrist, seen an ophthalmologist or been
J@RV ^2 diagnosed with glaucoma; and participants’ employment
1i
7p' status (currently employed) and age. These significant
RJE<1!{ factors were placed in a backwards stepwise logistic regression
Q32GI,M%B model. The factors that remained significantly related
%iD'2e: to unoperated cataract were whether participants had ever
vqRW^>~-B seen an ophthalmologist, seen an optometrist and been
ee*E:Ltz\ diagnosed with glaucoma. None of the demographic factors
4p]hY!7 were associated with unoperated cataract in the multivariate
Ombvp; model.
YA@OA$`E The per cent of participants with unoperated cataract
F17nWvF who said that they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with
FQw@@ Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia 79
S*a_ Table 1. Prevalence of any cataracta (excluding previous cataract surgery) by age, gender and cohort
h9j/mUwV Age group Sex Urban Rural Nursing home Weighted total
Zl7m:b2M (years) (%) (%) (%)
/Avl&Rd 40–49 Male 2.56 4.04 0.00 3.00 (1.91, 4.08)
nX-%qc" Female 2.61 1.70 0.00 2.36 (1.61, 3.10)
<'<{|$Pw 50–59 Male 7.69 6.94 0.00 7.47 (5.80, 9.15)
3QD##Wr^ Female 6.67 7.56 0.00 6.92 (5.60, 8.24)
Hh0a\%! 60–69 Male 20.7 25.0 10.0 22.0 (18.1, 26.0)
<rFKJ^ B Female 27.9 35.7 37.5 30.3 (26.0, 34.7)
Pt8 U0)i) 70–79 Male 43.1 58.7 39.1 48.1 (41.2, 55.1)
5Y(f7,JX Female 58.6 66.2 55.6 61.0 (56.0, 65.9)
@G0j/@v 80–89 Male 74.0 89.3 92.0 79.3 (72.3, 86.3)
.RxAYf| Female 91.9 97.0 80.2 92.6 (86.4, 98.8)
Qh@A7N/L 90 + Male 100.0 100.0 75.0 98.8 (96.2, 100.0)
VH5Vg We Female 100.0 100.0 93.8 98.6 (97.0, 100.0)
%SD=3UK6 Age-standardized
w|WehNGr (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)
jwZBWt )5 aCortical > 4/16, nuclear > standard 2, posterior subcapsular > 1 mm2
:{KoZd their current vision was 30% (290/683), compared with 27%
Z}4
`y"By (26/95) of participants with prior cataract surgery (chisquared,
rg{|/ ;imT 1 d.f. = 0.25, P = 0.62).
RE}$(T= Outcomes of cataract surgery
H}B%OFI \+ Two hundred and forty-nine eyes had undergone prior
G!3d!$t
cataract surgery. Of these 249 operated eyes, 49 (20%) were
3erGTa[|q left aphakic, 6 (2.4%) had anterior chamber intraocular
Ff@Cs0R lenses and 194 (78%) had posterior chamber intraocular
]M5w!O! lenses. The rate of capsulotomy in the eyes with intact
&o$Pwk\p/ posterior capsules was 36% (73/202). Fifteen per cent of
%wuD4PRK eyes (17/114) with a clear posterior capsule had bestcorrected
.#ASo!O5q visual acuity of less than 6/12 compared with 43%
+>wBGVvS of eyes (6/14) with opaque capsules, and 15% of eyes
Kt3]r:&J (11/73) with prior capsulotomies (chi-squared, 2 d.f. = 7.21,
{*J{1)2 P = 0.027).
0xQ="aXE The percentage of eyes with best-corrected visual acuity
Z&E!m of 6/12 or better was 96% (302/314) for eyes without
K6l{wyMb| cataract, 88% (1417/1609) for eyes with prevalent cataract
:7-2^7z) and 85% (211/249) for eyes with operated cataract (chisquared,
@fSBW+ 2 d.f. = 22.3), P < 0.001). Twenty-seven of the
3.?kxac operated eyes (11%) had visual acuities of less than 6/18
U4*Q
;A# (moderate vision impairment) (Fig. 2). A cause of this
O>H'ok
moderate visual impairment (but not the only cause) in four
F$k^px (15%) eyes was secondary to cataract surgery. Three of these
awic9uMH four eyes had undergone intracapsular cataract extraction
TppuEC> and the fourth eye had an opaque posterior capsule. No one
X5gI'
u had bilateral vision impairment as a result of their cataract
@jxAU7! surgery.
(6Tvu5*4U DISCUSSION
AYP
*J To our knowledge, this is the first paper to systematically
7(S66 assess the prevalence of current cataract, previous cataract
k:qS' surgery, predictors of unoperated cataract and the outcomes
+-*Ww5Zti of cataract surgery in a population-based sample. The Visual
!RD<" Impairment Project is unique in that the sampling frame and
+'VSD`BR high response rate have ensured that the study population is
[PW\l+i representative of Australians aged 40 years and over. Therefore,
15X.gx these data can be used to plan age-related cataract
!En
q2 services throughout Australia.
O DO'!T- We found the rate of any cataract in those over the age
S
4hv7.A of 40 years to be 22%. Although relatively high, this rate is
s1GR!*z> significantly less than was reported in a number of previous
G8t9Lx studies,2,4,6 with the exception of the Casteldaccia Eye
\~!!h.xR Study.5 However, it is difficult to compare rates of cataract
n LD1j between studies because of different methodologies and
x,% %^( cataract definitions employed in the various studies, as well
6^l|/\Y{ as the different age structures of the study populations.
rV_i| Other studies have used less conservative definitions of
6Lb(oY}\3 cataract, thus leading to higher rates of cataract as defined.
?bH&F In most large epidemiologic studies of cataract, visual acuity
QB.QG!@ has not been included in the definition of cataract.
>2t.7UhDI Therefore, the prevalence of cataract may not reflect the
|8q:sr_ actual need for cataract surgery in the community.
~~\C
.6c# 80 McCarty et al.
\5iMr[s Table 2. Prevalence of previous cataract by age, gender and cohort
DEw>f%&4 Age group Gender Urban Rural Nursing home Weighted total
?yc{@| (years) (%) (%) (%)
-^aJ}[uaI 40–49 Male 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.80 (0.00, 1.81)
*671MJ9 Female 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (
_1,hO?TK 50–59 Male 0.68 0.58 0.00 0.65 (0.13, 1.17)
H[_i=X3-~ Female 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.41 (0.00, 1.00)
W=:AOBK 60–69 Male 2.12 7.59 0.00 3.80 (1.41, 6.19)
lz7?Z Female 2.11 3.51 0.00 2.54 (1.81, 3.26)
({OQ
JBC 70–79 Male 8.22 9.85 8.70 8.75 (6.38, 11.1)
awv$ }EFo Female 7.21 7.86 7.02 7.41 (5.36, 9.46)
zub"Ap3 80–89 Male 25.0 30.0 14.3 26.2 (17.0, 35.4)
~ \]?5
nj Female 27.9 25.6 18.3 26.7 (20.2, 33.3)
\(A
A|; 90 + Male 0.00 16.7 66.7 9.19 (0.00, 21.5)
k-Yli21-/| Female 58.3 100.0 26.9 63.1 (44.4, 81.8)
'^.`mT'P Age-standardized
,g pZz$Ef( (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)
n_
4 r'w Figure 2. Visual acuity in eyes that had undergone cataract
u4h0s1iI surgery, n = 249. h, Presenting; j, best-corrected.
Vel}lQD Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia 81
\%|Xf[AX The weighted prevalence of prior cataract surgery in the
njc-=o Visual Impairment Project (3.6%) was similar to the crude
)bWopc rate in the Beaver Dam Eye Study4 (3.1%), but less than the
o"6
2~
crude rate in the Blue Mountains Eye Study6 (6.0%).
iF9d?9TWl However, the age-standardized rate in the Blue Mountains
:r>^^tGT! Eye Study (standardized to the age distribution of the urban
j4<K0-? Visual Impairment Project cohort) was found to be less than
]rv4O@||w the Visual Impairment Project (standardized rate = 1.36%,
/5<= m: 95% CL 1.25, 1.47). The incidence of cataract surgery in
Khb Ku0Z Australia has exceeded population growth.1 This is due,
R_O=WmD perhaps, to advances in surgical techniques and lens
f S[-K?K implants that have changed the risk–benefit ratio.
vK%*5 The Global Initiative for the Elimination of Avoidable
$~S~pvT Blindness, sponsored by the World Health Organization,
L
R\LC6kM states that cataract surgical services should be provided that
lxm/*^
‘have a high success rate in terms of visual outcome and
$&=xw _ improved quality of life’,17 although the ‘high success rate’ is
a}uYv: not defined. Population- and clinic-based studies conducted
8L,=E ap in the United States have demonstrated marked improvement
jQ,Vs=*H in visual acuity following cataract surgery.18–20 We
Kv(R|d6Lp
found that 85% of eyes that had undergone cataract extraction
B
Z=I/L had visual acuity of 6/12 or better. Previously, we have
Z6rhInIY shown that participants with prevalent cataract in this
tEL9hZzI cohort are more likely to express dissatisfaction with their
s/=% kCo current vision than participants without cataract or participants
'S1u@p,q with prior cataract surgery.21 In a national study in the
~N/r;omVc United States, researchers found that the change in patients’
CVWT>M< ratings of their vision difficulties and satisfaction with their
~L"$(^/ vision after cataract surgery were more highly related to
&s='$a;4 their change in visual functioning score than to their change
0muC4 in visual acuity.19 Furthermore, improvement in visual function
P+0'^:J has been shown to be associated with improvement in
+U2lwd!j overall quality of life.22
N^dQX
,j A recent review found that the incidence of visually
|ZL?Pqki significant posterior capsule opacification following
`R$i|,9) cataract surgery to be greater than 25%.23 We found 36%
w.-x2Zg}, capsulotomy in our population and that this was associated
)"S%'myj with visual acuity similar to that of eyes with a clear
Z^:_,aJ? capsule, but significantly better than that of eyes with an
D xV=S0P opaque capsule.
:Ln)j%& A number of studies have shown that the demand and
N<9 c/V timing of cataract surgery vary according to visual acuity,
Jv8:GgSg degree of handicap and socioeconomic factors.8–10,24,25 We
<NMJkl-r8r have also shown previously that ophthalmologists are more
'9z
W#b likely to refer a patient for cataract surgery if the patient is
Cgx:6TRS employed and less likely to refer a nursing home resident.7
`Pvi+:6\Y In the Visual Impairment Project, we did not find that any
[(
heE
particular subgroup of the population was at greater risk of
sfyLG3$/ having unoperated cataract. Universal access to health care
P |tyyjO in Australia may explain the fact that people without
f6%k;R.Wz Medicare are more likely to delay cataract operations in the
F
qH)
)2 USA,8 but not having private health insurance is not associated
=&z+7Pe[ with unoperated cataract in Australia.
)X0=z1$ In summary, cataract is a significant public health problem
rG
P;0KtQ in that one in four people in their 80s will have had cataract
A|\A|8=b surgery. The importance of age-related cataract surgery will
w7Yu} JY^ increase further with the ageing of the population: the
A0<g8pv number of people over age 60 years is expected to double in
e,JBz~CK*w the next 20 years. Cataract surgery services are well
H?=W]<!W{y accessed by the Victorian population and the visual outcomes
2Mt$Dah of cataract surgery have been shown to be very good.
9^XZ|` These data can be used to plan for age-related cataract
I?'*vAW< surgical services in Australia in the future as the need for
klUV&O+=% cataract extractions increases.
0`x>p6.)G ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
juR>4SH The Visual Impairment Project was funded in part by grants
q-(~w!e from the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, the
:^]Po$fl National Health and Medical Research Council, the Ansell
a51(ySC}<s Ophthalmology Foundation, the Dorothy Edols Estate and
sE?%;uBb the Jack Brockhoff Foundation. Dr McCarty is the recipient
GrLxERf of a Wagstaff Fellowship in Ophthalmology from the Royal
M7/5e3 Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital.
NPH(v` REFERENCES
GJB+]b- 1. Keeffe JE, Taylor HR. Cataract surgery in Australia 1985–94.
`,V&@}&"n Aust. N.Z. J. Ophthalmol. 1996; 24: 313–17.
B&_:20^y~ 2. Sperduto RD, Hiller R. The prevalence of nuclear, cortical,
aH"d~Y^ and posterior subcapsular lens opacities in a general population
z\|<h=EU sample. Ophthalmology 1984; 91: 815–18.
.4a|^ vT 3. Maraini G, Pasquini P, Sperduto RD et al. Distribution of lens
TgcCR:eL= opacities in the Italian-American case–control study of agerelated
D9g*+KM& cataract. Ophthalmology 1990; 97: 752–6.
^VYR}1Mw 4. Klein BEK, Klein R, Linton KLP. Prevalence of age-related
;l;jTb ^l lens opacities in a population. The Beaver Dam Eye Study.
)zWu\JRp Ophthalmology 1992; 99: 546–52.
%1{S{FB 5. Guiffrè G, Giammanco R, Di Pace F, Ponte F. Casteldaccia eye
MEI&]qI study: prevalence of cataract in the adult and elderly population
,O:4[M !$w of a Mediterranean town. Int. Ophthalmol. 1995; 18:
YHN6/k7H 363–71.
y;ey( 6. Mitchell P, Cumming RG, Attebo K, Panchapakesan J.
;ab[YMkH Prevalence of cataract in Australia. The Blue Mountains Eye
OkRb3} Study. Ophthalmology 1997; 104: 581–8.
:tV"uWZFU 7. Keeffe JE, McCarty CA, Chang WP, Steinberg EP, Taylor HR.
KYTXf+ oh Relative importance of VA, patient concern and patient
w8+phN(-M lifestyle on referral for cataract surgery. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis.
@u+LF]MY Sci. 1996; 37: S183.
[p4([ef
' 8. Curbow B, Legro MW, Brenner MH. The influence of patientrelated
bSTori5 variables in the timing of cataract extraction. Am. J.
f:8!@,I Ophthalmol. 1993; 115: 614–22.
sB0]lj-[Un 9. Sletteberg OH, Høvding G, Bertelsen T. Do we operate too
Ks3YrKk;p many cataracts? The referred cataract patients’ own appraisal
Z&@P< of their need for surgery. Acta Ophthalmol. Scand. 1995; 73:
5#z7Hj&w 77–80.
#F/W_G7 v 10. Escarce JJ. Would eliminating differences in physician practice
XFFm'W6@ style reduce geographic variations in cataract surgery rates?
oJV dFE Med. Care 1993; 31: 1106–18.
6oWFj eZ0 11. Livingston PM, Carson CA, Stanislavsky YL, Lee SE, Guest
yTc&C)Jba CS, Taylor HR. Methods for a population-based study of eye
a"cw%L disease: the Melbourne Visual Impairment Project. Ophthalmic
N/C$8D34 Epidemiol. 1994; 1: 139–48.
b 2\J<Nw 12. Taylor HR, West SK. A simple system for the clinical grading
3
JlM{N6+ of lens opacities. Lens Res. 1988; 5: 175–81.
Y xnZ0MY 82 McCarty et al.
{_>XsB 13. Cochran WG. Sampling Techniques. New York: John Wiley &
*"jlsI Sons, 1977; 249–73.
[$6YPM>Ee 14. Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical Methods in Cancer Research. Volume
t.!?"kP"c II – the Design and Analysis of Cohort Studies. Lyon: International
Yl
1l$[A$ Agency for Research on Cancer; 1987; 52–61.
;<MHl[jJD 15. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 1996 Census of Population and
[:izej(\ Housing. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1997.
RP^L.X(7^ 16. Livingston PM, Lee SE, McCarty CA, Taylor HR. A comparison
IUWJi\, of participants with non-participants in a populationbased
6!6R3Za$ epidemiologic study: the Melbourne Visual Impairment
>kuu\ Project. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 1997; 4: 73–82.
xNJ*TA[+ 17. Programme for the Prevention of Blindness. Global Initiative for the
Dz$dJF1
8 Elimination of Avoidable Blindness. Geneva: World Health
M?m@o1\;W Organization, 1997.
F)aF.'$-/ 18. Applegate WB, Miller ST, Elam JT, Freeman JM, Wood TO,
vgn,ZcX Gettlefinger TC. Impact of cataract surgery with lens implantation
=FAIbM>u on vision and physical function in elderly patients.
2`V0k.$?p JAMA 1987; 257: 1064–6.
ND3|wQ`M0 19. Steinberg EP, Tielsch JM, Schein OD et al. National Study of
'~{kR=+ Cataract Surgery Outcomes. Variation in 4-month postoperative
8yswi[ outcomes as reflected in multiple outcome measures.
QqC-ztz Ophthalmology 1994; 101:1131–41.
f?QP(+M5. 20. Klein BEK, Klein R, Moss SE. Change in visual acuity associated
S2
-J1x2N with cataract surgery. The Beaver Dam Eye Study.
5sB~.z@ Ophthalmology 1996; 103: 1727–31.
>+%0|6VSb 21. McCarty CA, Keeffe JE, Taylor HR. The need for cataract
`Gg,oCQg surgery: projections based on lens opacity, visual acuity, and
UD&pL'{s personal concern. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1999; 83: 62–5.
5IRUG)Icr 22. Brenner MH, Curbow B, Javitt JC, Legro MW, Sommer A.
Sq`Zuu9t Vision change and quality of life in the elderly. Response to
CE4Kc33OU| cataract surgery and treatment of other ocular conditions.
,9buI=' Arch. Ophthalmol. 1993; 111: 680–5.
E,
/nK 23. Schaumberg DA, Dana MR, Christen WG, Glynn RJ. A
$b) k systematic overview of the incidence of posterior capsule
+^$E)Ol opacification. Ophthalmology 1998; 105: 1213–21.
DU@SXb 24. Mordue A, Parkin DW, Baxter C, Fawcett G, Stewart M.
`nd$6i^#W Thresholds for treatment in cataract surgery. J. Public Health
+[V.yY/t|> Med. 1994; 16: 393–8.
MZ^(BOe_ 25. Norregaard JC, Bernth-Peterson P, Alonso J et al. Variations in
0J
.]`kR indications for cataract surgery in the United States, Denmark,
9$ixjkIg Canada, and Spain: results from the International Cataract
|4Os_*tRKU Surgery Outcomes Study. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1998; 82: 1107–11.