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 $<mL2$.L~  
Purpose: To quantify the prevalence of cataract, the outcomes [E1|jcmQ  
of cataract surgery and the factors related to CHP6H}#|g  
unoperated cataract in Australia. )qXe`3 d5  
Methods: Participants were recruited from the Visual Z=8CbS) .  
Impairment Project: a cluster, stratified sample of more than o`! :Q!+  
5000 Victorians aged 40 years and over. At examination JlGD.!`  
sites interviews, clinical examinations and lens photography V46[whL%r  
were performed. Cataract was defined in participants who $%8n,FJ[  
had: had previous cataract surgery, cortical cataract greater Ao0PFY  
than 4/16, nuclear greater than Wilmer standard 2, or +%9Y7qol  
posterior subcapsular greater than 1 mm2. =8_TOvSJ4p  
Results: The participant group comprised 3271 Melbourne 31Mc<4zI8  
residents, 403 Melbourne nursing home residents and 1473 F|{?GV%hF  
rural residents.The weighted rate of any cataract in Victoria FY*0gp  
was 21.5%. The overall weighted rate of prior cataract :#jv4N  
surgery was 3.79%. Two hundred and forty-nine eyes had X&X')hzIt  
had prior cataract surgery. Of these 249 procedures, 49 1*b%C"C  
(20%) were aphakic, 6 (2.4%) had anterior chamber nDw 9  
intraocular lenses and 194 (78%) had posterior chamber C,u.!g;lm  
intraocular lenses.Two hundred and eleven of these operated Y2&6x Th  
eyes (85%) had best-corrected visual acuity of 6/12 or lf# six  
better, the legal requirement for a driver’s license.Twentyseven ^- Ji]5~  
(11%) had visual acuity of less than 6/18 (moderate Te#[+B?  
vision impairment). Complications of cataract surgery Q3Lqj2r  
caused reduced vision in four of the 27 eyes (15%), or 1.9% @$G K<jl  
of operated eyes. Three of these four eyes had undergone "ZW*O{  
intracapsular cataract extraction and the fourth eye had an t]%R4ymV  
opaque posterior capsule. No one had bilateral vision <P- r)=^  
impairment as a result of cataract surgery. Surprisingly, no c7wgjQ[   
particular demographic factors (such as age, gender, rural >z$|O>j  
residence, occupation, employment status, health insurance 5UyK1e))  
status, ethnicity) were related to the presence of unoperated 8!Kfe  
cataract. ;\.&FMi  
Conclusions: Although the overall prevalence of cataract is !/ j|\_O  
quite high, no particular subgroup is systematically underserviced 6 dMpd4"\  
in terms of cataract surgery. Overall, the results of 5]JXXdt  
cataract surgery are very good, with the majority of eyes -+/|  
achieving driving vision following cataract extraction. h,G$e|[?  
Key words: cataract extraction, health planning, health 4R6 .GO  
services accessibility, prevalence ly+7klQ;.  
INTRODUCTION <h[^&CY{  
Cataract is the leading cause of blindness worldwide and, in ,3u19>2  
Australia, cataract extractions account for the majority of all eO#)QoHj^  
ophthalmic procedures.1 Over the period 1985–94, the rate '/?&Gol-  
of cataract surgery in Australia was twice as high as would be X3vrD{uNU  
expected from the growth in the elderly population.1 0c) 19Ig  
Although there have been a number of studies reporting l|9`22G  
the prevalence of cataract in various populations,2–6 there is LBR_Q0EP  
little information about determinants of cataract surgery in S 1JB]\  
the population. A previous survey of Australian ophthalmologists EIAT*l:NW  
showed that patient concern and lifestyle, rather $ a7^3  
than visual acuity itself, are the primary factors for referral >n/QKFvV5  
for cataract surgery.7 This supports prior research which has @VFg XN  
shown that visual acuity is not a strong predictor of need for '1aOdEZA*  
cataract surgery.8,9 Elsewhere, socioeconomic status has {S c1!2q  
been shown to be related to cataract surgery rates.10 )`a R?_  
To appropriately plan health care services, information is 3.Qwn.   
needed about the prevalence of age-related cataract in the ;|c,  
community as well as the factors associated with cataract .KV?;{~q@  
surgery. The purpose of this study is to quantify the prevalence ?*g]27f11  
of any cataract in Australia, to describe the factors O<5bsKw'r  
related to unoperated cataract in the community and to SU^/qF%8  
describe the visual outcomes of cataract surgery. %pdfGM 9g  
METHODS mtp[]  
Study population - 95 `.o  
Details about the study methodology for the Visual KMv|;yXYj4  
Impairment Project have been published previously.11 XyhdsH5%3!  
Briefly, cluster sampling within three strata was employed to h&XyMm9C  
recruit subjects aged 40 years and over to participate. =+u$ZZ0+]o  
Within the Melbourne Statistical Division, nine pairs of _\"?:~rUN  
census collector districts were randomly selected. Fourteen [Gu]p&  
nursing homes within a 5 km radius of these nine test sites GlaWBF#  
were randomly chosen to recruit nursing home residents. ;2$^=:8  
Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology (2000) 28, 77–82 #nnP.t m  
Original Article I".r`$XZ  
Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia r$+9grm<  
Catherine A McCarty PhD, MPH, Mukesh B Nanjan PhD, Hugh R Taylor MD x;N?'"GP  
Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia ?/O+5rjA  
n Correspondence: Dr Cathy McCarty MPH, Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, 32 Gisborne Street, East Melbourne, {It4=I)M  
Victoria 3002, Australia. Email: cathy@cera.unimelb.edu.au b"J(u|Du`  
78 McCarty et al. Z0x N9S  
Finally, four pairs of census collector districts in four rural p B )nQ5l'  
Victorian communities were randomly selected to recruit rural `XTu$+  
residents. A household census was conducted to identify D[<8(~VP  
eligible residents aged 40 years and over who had been a <yeG0`}t  
resident at that address for at least 6 months. At the time of YoXXelO&  
the household census, basic information about age, sex, t4nAy)I)P  
country of birth, language spoken at home, education, use of E*[X\70  
corrective spectacles and use of eye care services was collected. C! :\H<gI  
Eligible residents were then invited to attend a local g5H+2lSC  
examination site for a more detailed interview and examination. "# JRw  
The study protocol was approved by the Royal Victorian iNha<iS+  
Eye and Ear Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee. ?g!py[CrE  
Assessment of cataract &a O3N  
A standardized ophthalmic examination was performed after b" p,~{  
pupil dilatation with one drop of 10% phenylephrine ($]y*| Obn  
hydrochloride. Lens opacities were graded clinically at the 8K{ TRPy  
time of the examination and subsequently from photos using 4e9mN~  
the Wilmer cataract photo-grading system.12 Cortical and XjWoUnz  
posterior subcapsular (PSC) opacities were assessed on <s  $~h  
retroillumination and measured as the proportion (in 1/16) ]XU?Wg  
of pupil circumference occupied by opacity. For this analysis, 7kHEY5s "  
cortical cataract was defined as 4/16 or greater opacity, Qb6s]QZEV  
PSC cataract was defined as opacity equal to or greater than S.BM/M  
1 mm2 and nuclear cataract was defined as opacity equal to |0dmdrKD  
or greater than Wilmer standard 2,12 independent of visual F.K7w  
acuity. Examples of the minimum opacities defined as cortical, wS#.W zp.w  
nuclear and PSC cataract are presented in Figure 1. !|hv49!H  
Bilateral congenital cataracts or cataracts secondary to yX?& K}JI  
intraocular inflammation or trauma were excluded from the GAV|x]R  
analysis. Two cases of bilateral secondary cataract and eight byoDGUv  
cases of bilateral congenital cataract were excluded from the 6I"Q9(  
analyses. Av]<[ F/  
A Topcon® SL5 photo slit-lamp (Topcon America Corp., IZoa7S&t  
Paramus, NJ, USA) with a 0.1 mm slit beam of 9.0 mm in ._Wm%'uX  
height set to an incident angle of 30° was used for examinations. 8" XbW7^o  
Ektachrome® 200 ASA colour slide film (Eastman JiCDY)bu  
Kodak Company, Rochester, NY, USA) was used to photograph F`r=M%yh  
the nuclear opacities. The cortical opacities were !0{":4 \  
photographed with an Oxford® retroillumination camera 9U^jsb<St>  
(Marcher Enterprises Ltd, Hereford, UK) and T-MAX® 400 PSNfh7g  
film (Eastman Kodak). Photographs were graded separately "JT R5;`w  
by two research assistants and discrepancies were adjudicated uAwT)km {  
by an independent reviewer. Any discrepancies _0<qS{RW  
between the clinical grades and the photograph grades were IxHusB  
resolved. Except in cases where photographs were missing, *2Il{KO A^  
the photograph grades were used in the analyses. Photograph POdk0CuX  
grades were available for 4301 (84%) for cortical Tl6%z9rY @  
cataract, 4147 (81%) for nuclear cataract and 4303 (84%) be}^}w=  
for PSC cataract. Cataract status was classified according to T1.`*,t)=  
the severity of the opacity in the worse eye. ^(r?k_i/  
Assessment of risk factors 0.Pd,L(  
A standardized questionnaire was used to obtain information #p_3j 0S  
about education, employment and ethnic background.11 Pfj{TT.#L  
Specific information was elicited on the occurrence, duration .gh3"  
and treatment of a number of medical conditions, N&n2\Y  
including ocular trauma, arthritis, diabetes, gout, hypertension bX23F?  
and mental illness. Information about the use, dose and : z*OAl"  
duration of tobacco, alcohol, analgesics and steriods were c4E=qgP  
collected, and a food frequency questionnaire was used to  Gqvj  
determine current consumption of dietary sources of antioxidants maW,YOyRN  
and use of vitamin supplements. _1S^A0ft  
Data management and statistical analysis G'T/I\tB  
Data were collected either by direct computer entry with a <1cYz\/ !M  
questionnaire programmed in Paradox© (Carel Corporation, LT']3w  
Ottawa, Canada) with internal consistency checks, or h)2W}p{a4=  
on self-coding forms. Open-ended responses were coded at #&a-m,Y$sx  
a later time. Data that were entered on the self-coded forms {fW(e?8)  
were entered into a computer with double data entry and xrd@GTa I  
reconciliation of any inconsistencies. Data range and consistency H.cN(7LXm  
checks were performed on the entire data set. r*CI6yP  
SAS© version 6.1 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina) was 6fV%[.RR  
employed for statistical analyses. kW=g:m  
Ninety-five per cent confidence limits around the agespecific |>(d^<nR^v  
rates were calculated according to Cochran13 to  JsAl;w  
account for the effect of the cluster sampling. Ninety-five t ' _Au8  
per cent confidence limits around age-standardized rates r6k0=6i  
were calculated according to Breslow and Day.14 The strataspecific }+";W)R  
data were weighted according to the 1996 j}}:&>;  
Australian Bureau of Statistics census data15 to reflect the e%. Xya#\  
cataract prevalence in the entire Victorian population. ~u| k1  
Univariate analyses with Student’s t-tests and chi-squared )pELCk  
tests were first employed to evaluate risk factors for unoperated `D)ay  
cataract. Any factors with P < 0.10 were then fitted |L|)r)t  
into a backwards stepwise logistic regression model. For the M\\t)=q  
Figure 1. Minimum levels of cortical (a), nuclear (b), and posterior subcapsular (c) cataract. A0Z<1|6r*  
final multivariate models, P < 0.05 was considered statistically 2E]SKpJ  
significant. Design effect was assessed through the use UykOQ-2-n  
of cluster-specific models and multivariate models. The *a }NRf}W  
design effect was assumed to be additive and an adjustment ' *hy!f]  
made in the variance by adding the variance associated with JBX#U@k>I  
the design effect prior to constructing the 95% confidence 4-l G{I_S:  
limits. $r0~& $T&  
RESULTS t\YN\`X D  
Study population FCO5SX #-g  
A total of 3271 (83%) of the Melbourne residents, 403 GMc{ g  
(90%) Melbourne nursing home residents, and 1473 (92%) g )H>Uu5@  
rural residents participated. In general, non-participants did 8j~:p!@  
not differ from participants.16 The study population was s-^B)0T!  
representative of the Victorian population and Australia as "$)Nd+ny  
a whole. F3k]*pk8w  
The Melbourne residents ranged in age from 40 to NyHHK8>  
98 years (mean = 59) and 1511 (46%) were male. The eK]g FXk  
Melbourne nursing home residents ranged in age from 46 to w.s-T.5.j  
101 years (mean = 82) and 85 (21%) were men. The rural j#KL"B_ A  
residents ranged in age from 40 to 103 years (mean = 60) 96W!~w2xx  
and 701 (47.5%) were men. w7n6@"q  
Prevalence of cataract and prior cataract surgery #is1y3yh  
As would be expected, the rate of any cataract increases G01J1Ll}  
dramatically with age (Table 1). The weighted rate of any 1<Vc[p&  
cataract in Victoria was 21.5% (95% CL 18.1, 24.9). ^a9v5hu  
Although the rates varied somewhat between the three KIt:ytFx  
strata, they were not significantly different as the 95% confidence .}KY*y  
limits overlapped. The per cent of cataractous eyes 45cMG~]p  
with best-corrected visual acuity of less than 6/12 was 12.5% fBgW0o.Bu  
(65/520) for cortical cataract, 18% for nuclear cataract lZyxJDZ A  
(97/534) and 14.4% (27/187) for PSC cataract. Cataract ?Bg<74  
surgery also rose dramatically with age. The overall a3o4> 9  
weighted rate of prior cataract surgery in Victoria was t\[aU\4-7  
3.79% (95% CL 2.97, 4.60) (Table 2). ^1d"Rqtv  
Risk factors for unoperated cataract o+U]=q*|)$  
Cases of cataract that had not been removed were classified ]<3$Sx_{y  
as unoperated cataract. Risk factor analyses for unoperated `Qzga}`"]  
cataract were not performed with the nursing home residents Vf Jpiv1  
as information about risk factor exposure was not )ESF)aKMiz  
available for this cohort. The following factors were assessed m%8idjnG  
in relation to unoperated cataract: age, sex, residence \Qp #utC0s  
(urban/rural), language spoken at home (a measure of ethnic etY/K0  
integration), country of birth, parents’ country of birth (a 7_$Xt)Y{  
measure of ethnicity), years since migration, education, use  ;d"F'd  
of ophthalmic services, use of optometric services, private &p\fdR4e  
health insurance status, duration of distance glasses use, yFfa/d  
glaucoma, age-related maculopathy and employment status. d',OQ,~{  
In this cross sectional study it was not possible to assess the eQBR*@x  
level of visual acuity that would predict a patient’s having =ytB\e  
cataract surgery, as visual acuity data prior to cataract kNX"Vo]1  
surgery were not available. + V:P-D  
The significant risk factors for unoperated cataract in univariate eT??F  
analyses were related to: whether a participant had UL0%oJ#  
ever seen an optometrist, seen an ophthalmologist or been zh2gU@"  
diagnosed with glaucoma; and participants’ employment `N 0Mm7  
status (currently employed) and age. These significant L4th 7#  
factors were placed in a backwards stepwise logistic regression "zSi9]j  
model. The factors that remained significantly related P 19nF[A  
to unoperated cataract were whether participants had ever PCl@Ff  
seen an ophthalmologist, seen an optometrist and been % j],6wW5J  
diagnosed with glaucoma. None of the demographic factors = ;sEi:HC  
were associated with unoperated cataract in the multivariate #NZ\UmA  
model. a`.] 8Jy)  
The per cent of participants with unoperated cataract lSw9e<jYO  
who said that they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with 4_3O? IY  
Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia 79 t7|uZHKK  
Table 1. Prevalence of any cataracta (excluding previous cataract surgery) by age, gender and cohort r3X|*/  
Age group Sex Urban Rural Nursing home Weighted total 7.4Q  
(years) (%) (%) (%) i~\fpay  
40–49 Male 2.56 4.04 0.00 3.00 (1.91, 4.08) )zK`*Fa az  
Female 2.61 1.70 0.00 2.36 (1.61, 3.10) e %VJ:Dj  
50–59 Male 7.69 6.94 0.00 7.47 (5.80, 9.15) et|P5%G  
Female 6.67 7.56 0.00 6.92 (5.60, 8.24) !a&@y#x  
60–69 Male 20.7 25.0 10.0 22.0 (18.1, 26.0) rM6^pzxe  
Female 27.9 35.7 37.5 30.3 (26.0, 34.7) K5U=%z  
70–79 Male 43.1 58.7 39.1 48.1 (41.2, 55.1) _RG!lmJV  
Female 58.6 66.2 55.6 61.0 (56.0, 65.9) 9g3J{pKcZ  
80–89 Male 74.0 89.3 92.0 79.3 (72.3, 86.3) p"4i(CWGS  
Female 91.9 97.0 80.2 92.6 (86.4, 98.8) ra \Moy  
90 + Male 100.0 100.0 75.0 98.8 (96.2, 100.0) q1j<p)(  
Female 100.0 100.0 93.8 98.6 (97.0, 100.0) 'Z LGt#  
Age-standardized +pU\;x  
(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) srfFJX7*  
aCortical > 4/16, nuclear > standard 2, posterior subcapsular > 1 mm2  8U!;  
their current vision was 30% (290/683), compared with 27% m%ZJ p7C  
(26/95) of participants with prior cataract surgery (chisquared, D*+uH;ws  
1 d.f. = 0.25, P = 0.62). $M\|zUQu.  
Outcomes of cataract surgery -|^}~yOx0=  
Two hundred and forty-nine eyes had undergone prior O@[c*3]e  
cataract surgery. Of these 249 operated eyes, 49 (20%) were 6|U0"C#]  
left aphakic, 6 (2.4%) had anterior chamber intraocular ,eq[X\B>  
lenses and 194 (78%) had posterior chamber intraocular o)'u%m  
lenses. The rate of capsulotomy in the eyes with intact wH1 E7LY|R  
posterior capsules was 36% (73/202). Fifteen per cent of <1[WNj2[  
eyes (17/114) with a clear posterior capsule had bestcorrected z'a#lA.$}  
visual acuity of less than 6/12 compared with 43% 96 ;17h$  
of eyes (6/14) with opaque capsules, and 15% of eyes g|*2O}<  
(11/73) with prior capsulotomies (chi-squared, 2 d.f. = 7.21, Z qX  U  
P = 0.027). Bb[%?~ E!  
The percentage of eyes with best-corrected visual acuity ,j wU\xo`C  
of 6/12 or better was 96% (302/314) for eyes without <apsG7(7  
cataract, 88% (1417/1609) for eyes with prevalent cataract a5WVDh, cR  
and 85% (211/249) for eyes with operated cataract (chisquared, A0.) =q  
2 d.f. = 22.3), P < 0.001). Twenty-seven of the V^aX^;  
operated eyes (11%) had visual acuities of less than 6/18 JDv 7jy  
(moderate vision impairment) (Fig. 2). A cause of this "- xm+7  
moderate visual impairment (but not the only cause) in four SeAokz>  
(15%) eyes was secondary to cataract surgery. Three of these _3<J!$]&p  
four eyes had undergone intracapsular cataract extraction \FN"0P(G  
and the fourth eye had an opaque posterior capsule. No one VKy:e.  
had bilateral vision impairment as a result of their cataract 9Ue3 %?~c  
surgery. GL&ri!,  
DISCUSSION "m +Eu|{  
To our knowledge, this is the first paper to systematically XNwY\y  
assess the prevalence of current cataract, previous cataract kRNr`yfN  
surgery, predictors of unoperated cataract and the outcomes L>$yslH; b  
of cataract surgery in a population-based sample. The Visual & Sy0Of  
Impairment Project is unique in that the sampling frame and +U&aK dQs  
high response rate have ensured that the study population is h!56?4,%Y  
representative of Australians aged 40 years and over. Therefore, s]`&9{=E  
these data can be used to plan age-related cataract {'Nvs_{6  
services throughout Australia. QQP bKok>  
We found the rate of any cataract in those over the age a`(6hL3IT  
of 40 years to be 22%. Although relatively high, this rate is x3>K{  
significantly less than was reported in a number of previous 1C+Y|p?K A  
studies,2,4,6 with the exception of the Casteldaccia Eye a*hOT_;#  
Study.5 However, it is difficult to compare rates of cataract ntkTrei ]  
between studies because of different methodologies and %KNnss}  
cataract definitions employed in the various studies, as well ,eOOV@3C  
as the different age structures of the study populations. `,H\j?  
Other studies have used less conservative definitions of rklr^ e  
cataract, thus leading to higher rates of cataract as defined. x*}j$n(Oa  
In most large epidemiologic studies of cataract, visual acuity @/H1}pM~  
has not been included in the definition of cataract. 0z/tceW 'F  
Therefore, the prevalence of cataract may not reflect the ;YNN)P%"  
actual need for cataract surgery in the community. cyA|6Ltg%  
80 McCarty et al. @Ek''a$  
Table 2. Prevalence of previous cataract by age, gender and cohort F6h3M~uR  
Age group Gender Urban Rural Nursing home Weighted total f!ehq\K1k  
(years) (%) (%) (%) m9Gyjr'L  
40–49 Male 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.80 (0.00, 1.81) sp0& " &5  
Female 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ( nH}api^0A  
50–59 Male 0.68 0.58 0.00 0.65 (0.13, 1.17) QE84l  
Female 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.41 (0.00, 1.00) N72z5[..  
60–69 Male 2.12 7.59 0.00 3.80 (1.41, 6.19) pBiC  
Female 2.11 3.51 0.00 2.54 (1.81, 3.26) "5Oog<  
70–79 Male 8.22 9.85 8.70 8.75 (6.38, 11.1) lG>rf*ei~  
Female 7.21 7.86 7.02 7.41 (5.36, 9.46) 5 g99t$p9  
80–89 Male 25.0 30.0 14.3 26.2 (17.0, 35.4) l>h%J,W  
Female 27.9 25.6 18.3 26.7 (20.2, 33.3) xb0hJ~e  
90 + Male 0.00 16.7 66.7 9.19 (0.00, 21.5) *!%y.$\cE  
Female 58.3 100.0 26.9 63.1 (44.4, 81.8) N~l(ng9'U  
Age-standardized [%;LZZgl  
(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) WRZi^B8 @  
Figure 2. Visual acuity in eyes that had undergone cataract ;j=/2vU~@  
surgery, n = 249. h, Presenting; j, best-corrected. HKv:)h{ ?  
Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia 81 Sd' uXX@  
The weighted prevalence of prior cataract surgery in the :-.R*W  
Visual Impairment Project (3.6%) was similar to the crude ZJsc?*@  
rate in the Beaver Dam Eye Study4 (3.1%), but less than the 0`"]mYH  
crude rate in the Blue Mountains Eye Study6 (6.0%). sn_]7d+ Q  
However, the age-standardized rate in the Blue Mountains 6xr$  
Eye Study (standardized to the age distribution of the urban '[I_Iu#,  
Visual Impairment Project cohort) was found to be less than )+wBS3BC  
the Visual Impairment Project (standardized rate = 1.36%, YoGnk^$  
95% CL 1.25, 1.47). The incidence of cataract surgery in ]p(+m_F  
Australia has exceeded population growth.1 This is due, x?KgEcnw2X  
perhaps, to advances in surgical techniques and lens %*e6@Hm  
implants that have changed the risk–benefit ratio. /tc*jXB  
The Global Initiative for the Elimination of Avoidable dl'pl  
Blindness, sponsored by the World Health Organization, )^ R]3!v  
states that cataract surgical services should be provided that -LzHCO/7(  
‘have a high success rate in terms of visual outcome and upQ:C>S  
improved quality of life’,17 although the ‘high success rate’ is Q7&Yy25   
not defined. Population- and clinic-based studies conducted %'"#X?jk1  
in the United States have demonstrated marked improvement AW&HWc~A  
in visual acuity following cataract surgery.18–20 We _Z.l r\  
found that 85% of eyes that had undergone cataract extraction WSn^P~vC  
had visual acuity of 6/12 or better. Previously, we have ~1`.iA  
shown that participants with prevalent cataract in this S9 <J \`FG  
cohort are more likely to express dissatisfaction with their 2WIL0Siwl  
current vision than participants without cataract or participants Ljq/f& c  
with prior cataract surgery.21 In a national study in the m/| >4~  
United States, researchers found that the change in patients’ +G"=1sxJ  
ratings of their vision difficulties and satisfaction with their `i8osX[&p  
vision after cataract surgery were more highly related to /v: g' #n  
their change in visual functioning score than to their change }+nC}A"BC  
in visual acuity.19 Furthermore, improvement in visual function 1HskY| X  
has been shown to be associated with improvement in =<_xUh.  
overall quality of life.22 K0@2>nR  
A recent review found that the incidence of visually 00Tm0rY  
significant posterior capsule opacification following SGZOfTcY  
cataract surgery to be greater than 25%.23 We found 36% [V  T&  
capsulotomy in our population and that this was associated ta> g:  
with visual acuity similar to that of eyes with a clear `FH Hh  
capsule, but significantly better than that of eyes with an ?O8NyCeb7  
opaque capsule. M E[Wg\  
A number of studies have shown that the demand and ZO2u[HSO>  
timing of cataract surgery vary according to visual acuity, 6i( V+  
degree of handicap and socioeconomic factors.8–10,24,25 We %.r{+m  
have also shown previously that ophthalmologists are more x1Q}B   
likely to refer a patient for cataract surgery if the patient is $JypVA(CX  
employed and less likely to refer a nursing home resident.7 Cfyas'  
In the Visual Impairment Project, we did not find that any mn{8"@Z  
particular subgroup of the population was at greater risk of o$'Fz[U  
having unoperated cataract. Universal access to health care KZ6}),p  
in Australia may explain the fact that people without 1.o-2:]E  
Medicare are more likely to delay cataract operations in the tv+q~TFB=Z  
USA,8 but not having private health insurance is not associated DdJxb{y7  
with unoperated cataract in Australia. "6~pTHT  
In summary, cataract is a significant public health problem 7OS\j>hb~  
in that one in four people in their 80s will have had cataract ?Mp~^sgp'  
surgery. The importance of age-related cataract surgery will U; ?%rM6  
increase further with the ageing of the population: the kI<C\ *N  
number of people over age 60 years is expected to double in QBR9BR  
the next 20 years. Cataract surgery services are well Yi{[llru  
accessed by the Victorian population and the visual outcomes owCQ71Q  
of cataract surgery have been shown to be very good. WVftLIJ  
These data can be used to plan for age-related cataract k*-_CO-h  
surgical services in Australia in the future as the need for 0'Tq W9P  
cataract extractions increases. PkLRQ}  
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ZF51|b  
The Visual Impairment Project was funded in part by grants {dg3 qg~  
from the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, the 4(R O1VWsb  
National Health and Medical Research Council, the Ansell +N5G4t#.  
Ophthalmology Foundation, the Dorothy Edols Estate and req=w;E:  
the Jack Brockhoff Foundation. Dr McCarty is the recipient 022YuqL<v  
of a Wagstaff Fellowship in Ophthalmology from the Royal Gu V -[  
Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital. C N"V w  
REFERENCES  s+[_5n~  
1. Keeffe JE, Taylor HR. Cataract surgery in Australia 1985–94. en=Z[ZIPO  
Aust. N.Z. J. Ophthalmol. 1996; 24: 313–17. ,4NvD2Y  
2. Sperduto RD, Hiller R. The prevalence of nuclear, cortical, L:`|lc=^  
and posterior subcapsular lens opacities in a general population 6](vnS;  
sample. Ophthalmology 1984; 91: 815–18. 3hmuF6y~  
3. Maraini G, Pasquini P, Sperduto RD et al. Distribution of lens ( ]AErz+  
opacities in the Italian-American case–control study of agerelated N Rcg~Nu  
cataract. Ophthalmology 1990; 97: 752–6. zf$OC}|\w  
4. Klein BEK, Klein R, Linton KLP. Prevalence of age-related DA]!ndJD  
lens opacities in a population. The Beaver Dam Eye Study. +=$\7z>s  
Ophthalmology 1992; 99: 546–52. mZ/?uPIa  
5. Guiffrè G, Giammanco R, Di Pace F, Ponte F. Casteldaccia eye s$C;31k  
study: prevalence of cataract in the adult and elderly population K *{C:Y  
of a Mediterranean town. Int. Ophthalmol. 1995; 18: C0 .Xp  
363–71. To]WCFp6@  
6. Mitchell P, Cumming RG, Attebo K, Panchapakesan J. %saTyF,  
Prevalence of cataract in Australia. The Blue Mountains Eye z:+Xs!S  
Study. Ophthalmology 1997; 104: 581–8. oFoG+H"&7\  
7. Keeffe JE, McCarty CA, Chang WP, Steinberg EP, Taylor HR. }C/ }8<  
Relative importance of VA, patient concern and patient b=F"  
lifestyle on referral for cataract surgery. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. vD:.1,72  
Sci. 1996; 37: S183. PaMi5Pq  
8. Curbow B, Legro MW, Brenner MH. The influence of patientrelated 5ir ewh'R  
variables in the timing of cataract extraction. Am. J. HjGT{o  
Ophthalmol. 1993; 115: 614–22. 5f/[HO)  
9. Sletteberg OH, Høvding G, Bertelsen T. Do we operate too K.o?g?&<  
many cataracts? The referred cataract patients’ own appraisal cn<9!2a  
of their need for surgery. Acta Ophthalmol. Scand. 1995; 73: 5c{=/}Y  
77–80. 7 ; T S  
10. Escarce JJ. Would eliminating differences in physician practice r\@"({q}_-  
style reduce geographic variations in cataract surgery rates? @faf  
Med. Care 1993; 31: 1106–18. |8`}yRsQ  
11. Livingston PM, Carson CA, Stanislavsky YL, Lee SE, Guest GS8,mQ8l*l  
CS, Taylor HR. Methods for a population-based study of eye Qyt6+xL  
disease: the Melbourne Visual Impairment Project. Ophthalmic w V;y]'  
Epidemiol. 1994; 1: 139–48. BzTm[`(h  
12. Taylor HR, West SK. A simple system for the clinical grading BAX])~_  
of lens opacities. Lens Res. 1988; 5: 175–81. lCd^|E  
82 McCarty et al. Y8\Ms^rz  
13. Cochran WG. Sampling Techniques. New York: John Wiley & !Z%QD\knY  
Sons, 1977; 249–73. ; wW6x  
14. Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical Methods in Cancer Research. Volume h2=zvD;  
II – the Design and Analysis of Cohort Studies. Lyon: International @VxBURZ?  
Agency for Research on Cancer; 1987; 52–61. {[r'+=}l\S  
15. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 1996 Census of Population and ~{2@-qcm  
Housing. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1997. XKk s j!'B  
16. Livingston PM, Lee SE, McCarty CA, Taylor HR. A comparison -7=pb#y  
of participants with non-participants in a populationbased f}Uw%S=w,  
epidemiologic study: the Melbourne Visual Impairment (O?z6g  
Project. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 1997; 4: 73–82. g](m& O  
17. Programme for the Prevention of Blindness. Global Initiative for the ,wRrx&  
Elimination of Avoidable Blindness. Geneva: World Health .P =!M  
Organization, 1997. Ls|;gewp  
18. Applegate WB, Miller ST, Elam JT, Freeman JM, Wood TO, b#82G`6r  
Gettlefinger TC. Impact of cataract surgery with lens implantation v]!|\]  
on vision and physical function in elderly patients. ?$ YE  
JAMA 1987; 257: 1064–6. laFkOQI  
19. Steinberg EP, Tielsch JM, Schein OD et al. National Study of Ty@&s 58a  
Cataract Surgery Outcomes. Variation in 4-month postoperative *qz]vUb/0  
outcomes as reflected in multiple outcome measures. ^.-P]I]  
Ophthalmology 1994; 101:1131–41. ]^ RgzK  
20. Klein BEK, Klein R, Moss SE. Change in visual acuity associated vP,WV9Q1u  
with cataract surgery. The Beaver Dam Eye Study. \7og&j-h  
Ophthalmology 1996; 103: 1727–31. QFX|ZsmK  
21. McCarty CA, Keeffe JE, Taylor HR. The need for cataract 4~o\Os+8  
surgery: projections based on lens opacity, visual acuity, and  1XHGW=n  
personal concern. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1999; 83: 62–5. OW #pBeX99  
22. Brenner MH, Curbow B, Javitt JC, Legro MW, Sommer A. vW]BOzK  
Vision change and quality of life in the elderly. Response to JVXBm]  
cataract surgery and treatment of other ocular conditions. *qpmI9m  
Arch. Ophthalmol. 1993; 111: 680–5. E"w7/k#3}C  
23. Schaumberg DA, Dana MR, Christen WG, Glynn RJ. A xX|-5cM;  
systematic overview of the incidence of posterior capsule .6/[X` *  
opacification. Ophthalmology 1998; 105: 1213–21. !).D  
24. Mordue A, Parkin DW, Baxter C, Fawcett G, Stewart M. cFH,fj  
Thresholds for treatment in cataract surgery. J. Public Health W cqYpPv  
Med. 1994; 16: 393–8. 0} {QQB  
25. Norregaard JC, Bernth-Peterson P, Alonso J et al. Variations in P@*whjPmo  
indications for cataract surgery in the United States, Denmark, DrB=   
Canada, and Spain: results from the International Cataract ^l iyWl  
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:
免费考博论坛网址是什么? 正确答案:freekaobo.com
按"Ctrl+Enter"直接提交