ABSTRACT
L|Iq#QX| Purpose: To quantify the prevalence of cataract, the outcomes
=nl,5^ of cataract surgery and the factors related to
Uyh#g^r unoperated cataract in Australia.
*bK@ A2` Methods: Participants were recruited from the Visual
a;sZNUSn Impairment Project: a cluster, stratified sample of more than
?aui q 5000 Victorians aged 40 years and over. At examination
.[!
^L sites interviews, clinical examinations and lens photography
#</yX5!V were performed. Cataract was defined in participants who
y{<7OTA) had: had previous cataract surgery, cortical cataract greater
{lA@I*_lj than 4/16, nuclear greater than Wilmer standard 2, or
$Z4p
$o
dk posterior subcapsular greater than 1 mm2.
bYfcn]N Results: The participant group comprised 3271 Melbourne
4$rO,W/&0 residents, 403 Melbourne nursing home residents and 1473
622).N4 rural residents.The weighted rate of any cataract in Victoria
~[{| s') was 21.5%. The overall weighted rate of prior cataract
K;~dZ surgery was 3.79%. Two hundred and forty-nine eyes had
s]qfLC had prior cataract surgery. Of these 249 procedures, 49
R!=XMV3$PH (20%) were aphakic, 6 (2.4%) had anterior chamber
BeRn9[ intraocular lenses and 194 (78%) had posterior chamber
8I'?9rt2M intraocular lenses.Two hundred and eleven of these operated
F&Gb[
Q&a8 eyes (85%) had best-corrected visual acuity of 6/12 or
B4?P
"| better, the legal requirement for a driver’s license.Twentyseven
711z- (11%) had visual acuity of less than 6/18 (moderate
;AaF ;zPV vision impairment). Complications of cataract surgery
8`D_"3j3g\ caused reduced vision in four of the 27 eyes (15%), or 1.9%
8[k-8h| of operated eyes. Three of these four eyes had undergone
8447hb?
W$ intracapsular cataract extraction and the fourth eye had an
L\UYt\ks opaque posterior capsule. No one had bilateral vision
a?;{0I:Ln impairment as a result of cataract surgery. Surprisingly, no
^%nAx| 4xQ particular demographic factors (such as age, gender, rural
1~+w7Ar=( residence, occupation, employment status, health insurance
\<5xf<{ status, ethnicity) were related to the presence of unoperated
ojaZC,} cataract.
{MHr]A}X\ Conclusions: Although the overall prevalence of cataract is
*]LM2J quite high, no particular subgroup is systematically underserviced
0wx`y$~R in terms of cataract surgery. Overall, the results of
gG}<l ': cataract surgery are very good, with the majority of eyes
j/sZ:Q achieving driving vision following cataract extraction.
nPKj%g3h
Key words: cataract extraction, health planning, health
UZyo:*yB services accessibility, prevalence
*ce h
]v INTRODUCTION
+2vcUy Cataract is the leading cause of blindness worldwide and, in
N-^\e)ln Australia, cataract extractions account for the majority of all
m^wYRA. ophthalmic procedures.1 Over the period 1985–94, the rate
g;-CAd5 of cataract surgery in Australia was twice as high as would be
JLjx4B\ expected from the growth in the elderly population.1
t({:TQ Although there have been a number of studies reporting
v8LKv`I's the prevalence of cataract in various populations,2–6 there is
+;vfn>^!b little information about determinants of cataract surgery in
k'm!| the population. A previous survey of Australian ophthalmologists
6%)dsTAB showed that patient concern and lifestyle, rather
=ahD'*R^A than visual acuity itself, are the primary factors for referral
=!Ok079{[ for cataract surgery.7 This supports prior research which has
8tsW^y;S shown that visual acuity is not a strong predictor of need for
*dGW=aM#C cataract surgery.8,9 Elsewhere, socioeconomic status has
!fZxK
CsQ been shown to be related to cataract surgery rates.10
!.9N
J2'8 To appropriately plan health care services, information is
MgA6/k needed about the prevalence of age-related cataract in the
90Q}9T\ community as well as the factors associated with cataract
@@+\ surgery. The purpose of this study is to quantify the prevalence
cd\0 of any cataract in Australia, to describe the factors
75%!R related to unoperated cataract in the community and to
HJwj,SL describe the visual outcomes of cataract surgery.
s@0#w*N METHODS
u" nyx0< Study population
{eS!cZJ Details about the study methodology for the Visual
qL(Qmgd Impairment Project have been published previously.11
JWC{ "6 Briefly, cluster sampling within three strata was employed to
?k#-)inf) recruit subjects aged 40 years and over to participate.
>wZ!1Jq Within the Melbourne Statistical Division, nine pairs of
EFhe`` census collector districts were randomly selected. Fourteen
Wo\NX05-? nursing homes within a 5 km radius of these nine test sites
Jgb{Tl:r were randomly chosen to recruit nursing home residents.
)0YMi!&j` Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology (2000) 28, 77–82
ji:
JLvf]% Original Article
qHklu2_% Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia
d.sxB}_O Catherine A McCarty PhD, MPH, Mukesh B Nanjan PhD, Hugh R Taylor MD
`G,\=c~{A Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Busxg?= n Correspondence: Dr Cathy McCarty MPH, Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, 32 Gisborne Street, East Melbourne,
~#N^@a Victoria 3002, Australia. Email:
cathy@cera.unimelb.edu.au Y ~xcJH 78 McCarty et al.
"2$C_aE Finally, four pairs of census collector districts in four rural
_=}Efy7 Victorian communities were randomly selected to recruit rural
7C
F-?M! residents. A household census was conducted to identify
*ix&"|h eligible residents aged 40 years and over who had been a
vA*!82 resident at that address for at least 6 months. At the time of
9H`Q
|7g(5 the household census, basic information about age, sex,
}]'Z~5T country of birth, language spoken at home, education, use of
<%Bsb}h,
corrective spectacles and use of eye care services was collected.
^g"G1,[%w Eligible residents were then invited to attend a local
b[%sKl examination site for a more detailed interview and examination.
"l"zbW WOH The study protocol was approved by the Royal Victorian
B~G?&"] Eye and Ear Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee.
M|w;7P} Assessment of cataract
mR)Xq= A standardized ophthalmic examination was performed after
l
Q
{k pupil dilatation with one drop of 10% phenylephrine
f![?og)I% hydrochloride. Lens opacities were graded clinically at the
kl,I.2- time of the examination and subsequently from photos using
|7LhE+E the Wilmer cataract photo-grading system.12 Cortical and
4"nb>tA posterior subcapsular (PSC) opacities were assessed on
E3@G^Y retroillumination and measured as the proportion (in 1/16)
2v\,sHw+- of pupil circumference occupied by opacity. For this analysis,
<l opk('7 cortical cataract was defined as 4/16 or greater opacity,
B4Ko,=pg PSC cataract was defined as opacity equal to or greater than
9)9p<(b$ 1 mm2 and nuclear cataract was defined as opacity equal to
>4
4A or greater than Wilmer standard 2,12 independent of visual
OGpy\0% acuity. Examples of the minimum opacities defined as cortical,
c>!zJAB nuclear and PSC cataract are presented in Figure 1.
,@!io Bilateral congenital cataracts or cataracts secondary to
gG*]|>M JI intraocular inflammation or trauma were excluded from the
`K5
Lp>=R analysis. Two cases of bilateral secondary cataract and eight
W5z<+8R cases of bilateral congenital cataract were excluded from the
ieo Naq analyses.
xMsSZ{j%5 A Topcon® SL5 photo slit-lamp (Topcon America Corp.,
1?%Q"*Y& Paramus, NJ, USA) with a 0.1 mm slit beam of 9.0 mm in
Gmi ^2?Z( height set to an incident angle of 30° was used for examinations.
cetHpU, Ektachrome® 200 ASA colour slide film (Eastman
&.^(,pt Kodak Company, Rochester, NY, USA) was used to photograph
mUSrC U_} the nuclear opacities. The cortical opacities were
s
2F<H# photographed with an Oxford® retroillumination camera
:x88 (Marcher Enterprises Ltd, Hereford, UK) and T-MAX® 400
w1U2cbCr/ film (Eastman Kodak). Photographs were graded separately
9bu}@#4* by two research assistants and discrepancies were adjudicated
),cozN=NM by an independent reviewer. Any discrepancies
W;L<zFFbU) between the clinical grades and the photograph grades were
I
"Qf};n resolved. Except in cases where photographs were missing,
$[(amj-;l the photograph grades were used in the analyses. Photograph
[l#
8}dy grades were available for 4301 (84%) for cortical
H#/ #yVw cataract, 4147 (81%) for nuclear cataract and 4303 (84%)
t"# .I?S0 for PSC cataract. Cataract status was classified according to
Bk)E]Fk| the severity of the opacity in the worse eye.
?OjZb'+=K Assessment of risk factors
fG dT2}gd A standardized questionnaire was used to obtain information
U)v){g3w) about education, employment and ethnic background.11
@~p;.=1]F Specific information was elicited on the occurrence, duration
&<dC3o! and treatment of a number of medical conditions,
<DeC^[-P including ocular trauma, arthritis, diabetes, gout, hypertension
fl@=h[g#t and mental illness. Information about the use, dose and
G.{)#cR duration of tobacco, alcohol, analgesics and steriods were
LOO<)XFJ collected, and a food frequency questionnaire was used to
K%jh6c8 determine current consumption of dietary sources of antioxidants
|-)2 D=P and use of vitamin supplements.
wqnrN6$jf Data management and statistical analysis
xVnk]:c Data were collected either by direct computer entry with a
|(eR
v?Qy@ questionnaire programmed in Paradox© (Carel Corporation,
2|a5xTzH Ottawa, Canada) with internal consistency checks, or
Yq~$pVgf on self-coding forms. Open-ended responses were coded at
h/goV a later time. Data that were entered on the self-coded forms
C}'Tmi were entered into a computer with double data entry and
kO3N.t@n reconciliation of any inconsistencies. Data range and consistency
&"gQrBa checks were performed on the entire data set.
(/i?Fd SAS© version 6.1 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina) was
eo [eN. employed for statistical analyses.
0FAe5
BE7
Ninety-five per cent confidence limits around the agespecific
Mn<#rBE B rates were calculated according to Cochran13 to
?mi1PNps# account for the effect of the cluster sampling. Ninety-five
gm8FmjZtf per cent confidence limits around age-standardized rates
Cs2F/M' were calculated according to Breslow and Day.14 The strataspecific
CT0 ~ data were weighted according to the 1996
lKSd]:3Xm Australian Bureau of Statistics census data15 to reflect the
3:g~@PB cataract prevalence in the entire Victorian population.
N|-'Fu Univariate analyses with Student’s t-tests and chi-squared
+1pY^#A tests were first employed to evaluate risk factors for unoperated
5jey%)= cataract. Any factors with P < 0.10 were then fitted
(
#Ku` into a backwards stepwise logistic regression model. For the
PdD,~N# Figure 1. Minimum levels of cortical (a), nuclear (b), and posterior subcapsular (c) cataract.
elDt!9Pu final multivariate models, P < 0.05 was considered statistically
""W*) rR
significant. Design effect was assessed through the use
"CTK%be{q/ of cluster-specific models and multivariate models. The
|*5HNP design effect was assumed to be additive and an adjustment
1m4Xl%KS> made in the variance by adding the variance associated with
H"vkp~u]I the design effect prior to constructing the 95% confidence
;)XB' limits.
_O;2.M%@ RESULTS
\r`><d Study population
_Squ%z:D A total of 3271 (83%) of the Melbourne residents, 403
|kc#=b@l (90%) Melbourne nursing home residents, and 1473 (92%)
x_oiPu.V rural residents participated. In general, non-participants did
Ftw;T| not differ from participants.16 The study population was
oD.[T)G? representative of the Victorian population and Australia as
L/KiE+Y a whole.
Ql]+,^kA@ The Melbourne residents ranged in age from 40 to
y*<x@i+h 98 years (mean = 59) and 1511 (46%) were male. The
)cV*cDL1j Melbourne nursing home residents ranged in age from 46 to
hF^y4v|5 101 years (mean = 82) and 85 (21%) were men. The rural
x2h5,.K residents ranged in age from 40 to 103 years (mean = 60)
&rfl(&\oUi and 701 (47.5%) were men.
60z8U#upM Prevalence of cataract and prior cataract surgery
[ f;o3 As would be expected, the rate of any cataract increases
b]6@
O8 dramatically with age (Table 1). The weighted rate of any
eufGU)M cataract in Victoria was 21.5% (95% CL 18.1, 24.9).
bw8[L;~%_ Although the rates varied somewhat between the three
`'G1"CX strata, they were not significantly different as the 95% confidence
AlA:MO]NM limits overlapped. The per cent of cataractous eyes
!g7lJ\B with best-corrected visual acuity of less than 6/12 was 12.5%
H;c3 x" (65/520) for cortical cataract, 18% for nuclear cataract
&>A<{J@VL (97/534) and 14.4% (27/187) for PSC cataract. Cataract
;Q>+#5H6F8 surgery also rose dramatically with age. The overall
h>"j!|#!s weighted rate of prior cataract surgery in Victoria was
9Q>85IiT 3.79% (95% CL 2.97, 4.60) (Table 2).
{1;R& Risk factors for unoperated cataract
tA8O(9OV Cases of cataract that had not been removed were classified
sR;u#". as unoperated cataract. Risk factor analyses for unoperated
|*(R$t X cataract were not performed with the nursing home residents
g[Q+DT as information about risk factor exposure was not
<O0.q. available for this cohort. The following factors were assessed
=/Ph]f9 in relation to unoperated cataract: age, sex, residence
Tfp^h~&u (urban/rural), language spoken at home (a measure of ethnic
):lH integration), country of birth, parents’ country of birth (a
=K<`nF0w measure of ethnicity), years since migration, education, use
"A]#KTP of ophthalmic services, use of optometric services, private
x|$|~6f=n health insurance status, duration of distance glasses use,
&embAqW: glaucoma, age-related maculopathy and employment status.
4 '5|YGQj In this cross sectional study it was not possible to assess the
~L4L|q 7 level of visual acuity that would predict a patient’s having
L6./5`b
s cataract surgery, as visual acuity data prior to cataract
z/,&w_8,: surgery were not available.
qLV3Y?S!L The significant risk factors for unoperated cataract in univariate
y96
HTQ32 analyses were related to: whether a participant had
DY\~O ever seen an optometrist, seen an ophthalmologist or been
I-^C6~ diagnosed with glaucoma; and participants’ employment
&grqRt status (currently employed) and age. These significant
1:!H`*DU& factors were placed in a backwards stepwise logistic regression
Eh*(N(` model. The factors that remained significantly related
NfWL3"&X to unoperated cataract were whether participants had ever
2ck0k,WP seen an ophthalmologist, seen an optometrist and been
1Qw_P('} diagnosed with glaucoma. None of the demographic factors
;I?x;lH were associated with unoperated cataract in the multivariate
x\oSD1t, model.
Y5c[9\'\ The per cent of participants with unoperated cataract
5z&>NI who said that they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with
O-huC:zZh Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia 79
{&J~P&,k Table 1. Prevalence of any cataracta (excluding previous cataract surgery) by age, gender and cohort
Sm{> 8e}UE Age group Sex Urban Rural Nursing home Weighted total
&?$mS'P (years) (%) (%) (%)
1|m%xX,[ 40–49 Male 2.56 4.04 0.00 3.00 (1.91, 4.08)
3l"8_zLP Female 2.61 1.70 0.00 2.36 (1.61, 3.10)
n,d)Wwe_`y 50–59 Male 7.69 6.94 0.00 7.47 (5.80, 9.15)
b:cy(6G( Female 6.67 7.56 0.00 6.92 (5.60, 8.24)
yfal'DqKF 60–69 Male 20.7 25.0 10.0 22.0 (18.1, 26.0)
d^f rKPB Female 27.9 35.7 37.5 30.3 (26.0, 34.7)
fm L8n<1 70–79 Male 43.1 58.7 39.1 48.1 (41.2, 55.1)
hI9q);g Female 58.6 66.2 55.6 61.0 (56.0, 65.9)
+I?k8',pi 80–89 Male 74.0 89.3 92.0 79.3 (72.3, 86.3)
Au6Y] Female 91.9 97.0 80.2 92.6 (86.4, 98.8)
Mo5b
@
[ 90 + Male 100.0 100.0 75.0 98.8 (96.2, 100.0)
i\O^s ] Female 100.0 100.0 93.8 98.6 (97.0, 100.0)
#IJeq0TVB Age-standardized
lF_"{dS_6( (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)
YN+vk}8 < aCortical > 4/16, nuclear > standard 2, posterior subcapsular > 1 mm2
|-;VnC&UY their current vision was 30% (290/683), compared with 27%
s_a jA
(26/95) of participants with prior cataract surgery (chisquared,
^,,}2dsb> 1 d.f. = 0.25, P = 0.62).
x
FWhr#5, Outcomes of cataract surgery
.!Pg)| Two hundred and forty-nine eyes had undergone prior
E7M_R/7@y cataract surgery. Of these 249 operated eyes, 49 (20%) were
/M+Du, left aphakic, 6 (2.4%) had anterior chamber intraocular
#=VYq4B= lenses and 194 (78%) had posterior chamber intraocular
'_^T]fr} lenses. The rate of capsulotomy in the eyes with intact
6i2%EC9 posterior capsules was 36% (73/202). Fifteen per cent of
loO"[8i.k eyes (17/114) with a clear posterior capsule had bestcorrected
'&'m#H*: visual acuity of less than 6/12 compared with 43%
uKd4+Km of eyes (6/14) with opaque capsules, and 15% of eyes
]8}51y8 (11/73) with prior capsulotomies (chi-squared, 2 d.f. = 7.21,
"VZXi_P P = 0.027).
fx(h fz The percentage of eyes with best-corrected visual acuity
jj1\oyQ8 of 6/12 or better was 96% (302/314) for eyes without
OQ7 `n<I<) cataract, 88% (1417/1609) for eyes with prevalent cataract
8AX_y3$ and 85% (211/249) for eyes with operated cataract (chisquared,
i'7+
?YL 2 d.f. = 22.3), P < 0.001). Twenty-seven of the
LP=j/qf| operated eyes (11%) had visual acuities of less than 6/18
UXs)$ (moderate vision impairment) (Fig. 2). A cause of this
gf1+yJ^d! moderate visual impairment (but not the only cause) in four
5&V=$]t (15%) eyes was secondary to cataract surgery. Three of these
z
-!w/Bv@ four eyes had undergone intracapsular cataract extraction
-cM1]soT and the fourth eye had an opaque posterior capsule. No one
IQRuqp KL had bilateral vision impairment as a result of their cataract
68Gywk3]=u surgery.
O=A2QykV( DISCUSSION
N+=|WeZ To our knowledge, this is the first paper to systematically
R
qtBz3v assess the prevalence of current cataract, previous cataract
l6ym <V(1p surgery, predictors of unoperated cataract and the outcomes
du66a+@t of cataract surgery in a population-based sample. The Visual
A^>@6d $2 Impairment Project is unique in that the sampling frame and
O\ZC$XF high response rate have ensured that the study population is
#*'Qm
A representative of Australians aged 40 years and over. Therefore,
S^eem_C
these data can be used to plan age-related cataract
lPZ(c%P services throughout Australia.
Y%.o
TB& We found the rate of any cataract in those over the age
#wI}93E of 40 years to be 22%. Although relatively high, this rate is
YQn<CjZ8af significantly less than was reported in a number of previous
+?$J8Paf studies,2,4,6 with the exception of the Casteldaccia Eye
V4n~Z+k Study.5 However, it is difficult to compare rates of cataract
r3l1I} between studies because of different methodologies and
R}ki%i5| cataract definitions employed in the various studies, as well
Y~WdN<g as the different age structures of the study populations.
~5f&<,p! Other studies have used less conservative definitions of
#ES[),+|mB cataract, thus leading to higher rates of cataract as defined.
Y%XF64)6 In most large epidemiologic studies of cataract, visual acuity
~U0%}Bbh has not been included in the definition of cataract.
l 88= Therefore, the prevalence of cataract may not reflect the
{]k#=a4 actual need for cataract surgery in the community.
#ibwD:{ 80 McCarty et al.
g2vm]j Table 2. Prevalence of previous cataract by age, gender and cohort
?woL17Gt Age group Gender Urban Rural Nursing home Weighted total
rwRZGd *p (years) (%) (%) (%)
--K)7 40–49 Male 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.80 (0.00, 1.81)
i#[8I-OtN/ Female 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (
h>/teHy / 50–59 Male 0.68 0.58 0.00 0.65 (0.13, 1.17)
;@wa\H[3v2 Female 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.41 (0.00, 1.00)
DYf QlA 60–69 Male 2.12 7.59 0.00 3.80 (1.41, 6.19)
g3:@90Ba Female 2.11 3.51 0.00 2.54 (1.81, 3.26)
;6G]~}>o 70–79 Male 8.22 9.85 8.70 8.75 (6.38, 11.1)
UP-eKK'z Female 7.21 7.86 7.02 7.41 (5.36, 9.46)
.U!EA0B 80–89 Male 25.0 30.0 14.3 26.2 (17.0, 35.4)
\p4*Q}t Female 27.9 25.6 18.3 26.7 (20.2, 33.3)
$*C
}iJsF 90 + Male 0.00 16.7 66.7 9.19 (0.00, 21.5)
f2WVg;Z Female 58.3 100.0 26.9 63.1 (44.4, 81.8)
s41%A2Enh Age-standardized
o?baiOkH (95% CL) Combined 3.31 (2.70, 3.93) 4.36 (2.67, 6.06) 2.26 (0.82, 3.70) 3.79 (2.97, 4.60)
:3D8rqi: Figure 2. Visual acuity in eyes that had undergone cataract
:Awwt0 surgery, n = 249. h, Presenting; j, best-corrected.
.I`>F/Sjr Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia 81
K*@?BE The weighted prevalence of prior cataract surgery in the
3f`Uoh+ Visual Impairment Project (3.6%) was similar to the crude
+ ~V%
R{h rate in the Beaver Dam Eye Study4 (3.1%), but less than the
~VsN\! G crude rate in the Blue Mountains Eye Study6 (6.0%).
D?KLV_Op However, the age-standardized rate in the Blue Mountains
jJ2rfdfj Eye Study (standardized to the age distribution of the urban
4e#g{, Visual Impairment Project cohort) was found to be less than
mS%4 the Visual Impairment Project (standardized rate = 1.36%,
+3))G 95% CL 1.25, 1.47). The incidence of cataract surgery in
;~F*2) Australia has exceeded population growth.1 This is due,
+Z"Wa0w
A perhaps, to advances in surgical techniques and lens
upMs yLp( implants that have changed the risk–benefit ratio.
4-bM90&1t The Global Initiative for the Elimination of Avoidable
R
~=c1bpdq Blindness, sponsored by the World Health Organization,
qjRbsD> states that cataract surgical services should be provided that
"-:H$ ‘have a high success rate in terms of visual outcome and
"smU5 s,P improved quality of life’,17 although the ‘high success rate’ is
KcT(/! not defined. Population- and clinic-based studies conducted
DcxT6[ in the United States have demonstrated marked improvement
%qV:h# in visual acuity following cataract surgery.18–20 We
FO>?>tK 0 found that 85% of eyes that had undergone cataract extraction
$}4ao2 had visual acuity of 6/12 or better. Previously, we have
D&fOZVuqZ shown that participants with prevalent cataract in this
-']Idn6 cohort are more likely to express dissatisfaction with their
` 0@m, current vision than participants without cataract or participants
H0b{`!'Fs: with prior cataract surgery.21 In a national study in the
F*G]Na@6D United States, researchers found that the change in patients’
%]F/!n ratings of their vision difficulties and satisfaction with their
|g hyH vision after cataract surgery were more highly related to
:H>I`)bw their change in visual functioning score than to their change
jct=Nee| in visual acuity.19 Furthermore, improvement in visual function
y:E$n! has been shown to be associated with improvement in
1TEKq#t;y overall quality of life.22
|zRrGQYm A recent review found that the incidence of visually
~"*W;|) significant posterior capsule opacification following
,]t_9B QK cataract surgery to be greater than 25%.23 We found 36%
"Pc}-& capsulotomy in our population and that this was associated
5ms]Wbh) with visual acuity similar to that of eyes with a clear
n"?*"Ya capsule, but significantly better than that of eyes with an
3ylSO73R opaque capsule.
jjrE8[ A number of studies have shown that the demand and
Ca5LLG timing of cataract surgery vary according to visual acuity,
sMLXn]m degree of handicap and socioeconomic factors.8–10,24,25 We
pcIS}+L have also shown previously that ophthalmologists are more
N*[b26 likely to refer a patient for cataract surgery if the patient is
\R9izuc9 employed and less likely to refer a nursing home resident.7
4YY!oDN: In the Visual Impairment Project, we did not find that any
K/(QR_@? particular subgroup of the population was at greater risk of
W NeBthq6 having unoperated cataract. Universal access to health care
G'Wp)W;])\ in Australia may explain the fact that people without
0i5S=L`j Medicare are more likely to delay cataract operations in the
%*K zP{ USA,8 but not having private health insurance is not associated
o;
6^: with unoperated cataract in Australia.
KL!cPnAUu In summary, cataract is a significant public health problem
T++q.oFc
in that one in four people in their 80s will have had cataract
tZx}/&m- surgery. The importance of age-related cataract surgery will
}Z\S__\9 increase further with the ageing of the population: the
PZ#up{[o number of people over age 60 years is expected to double in
0$b4\.0>~ the next 20 years. Cataract surgery services are well
:,yC\,H^ accessed by the Victorian population and the visual outcomes
"*`!.9pt of cataract surgery have been shown to be very good.
0t(c84o5 These data can be used to plan for age-related cataract
EUh_`R surgical services in Australia in the future as the need for
U8gj
\G\` cataract extractions increases.
G$KQgUN~[ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
|Vlx
: The Visual Impairment Project was funded in part by grants
/kw;q{>?o from the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, the
\1#]qs - National Health and Medical Research Council, the Ansell
eU`O=uE Ophthalmology Foundation, the Dorothy Edols Estate and
3P>1-= the Jack Brockhoff Foundation. Dr McCarty is the recipient
_iDVd2X"H of a Wagstaff Fellowship in Ophthalmology from the Royal
D
vU1+y Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital.
a[z$ae7 REFERENCES
#*w)rGkU2 1. Keeffe JE, Taylor HR. Cataract surgery in Australia 1985–94.
]
>w@@A
Aust. N.Z. J. Ophthalmol. 1996; 24: 313–17.
ZNDi;6e 2. Sperduto RD, Hiller R. The prevalence of nuclear, cortical,
;/pI@Ck and posterior subcapsular lens opacities in a general population
G,B4=[Y sample. Ophthalmology 1984; 91: 815–18.
G9am}qr 3. Maraini G, Pasquini P, Sperduto RD et al. Distribution of lens
Dm}M8`|X opacities in the Italian-American case–control study of agerelated
y3j"vKG cataract. Ophthalmology 1990; 97: 752–6.
E`@Z9k1 ` 4. Klein BEK, Klein R, Linton KLP. Prevalence of age-related
]jiVe_ OS< lens opacities in a population. The Beaver Dam Eye Study.
mvTp,^1 Ophthalmology 1992; 99: 546–52.
%\|{_]h}y 5. Guiffrè G, Giammanco R, Di Pace F, Ponte F. Casteldaccia eye
KZcmNli&A study: prevalence of cataract in the adult and elderly population
{J/Fp# of a Mediterranean town. Int. Ophthalmol. 1995; 18:
9iM%kY#)W 363–71.
Q
(q&(/ 6. Mitchell P, Cumming RG, Attebo K, Panchapakesan J.
#pK"
^O*! Prevalence of cataract in Australia. The Blue Mountains Eye
lsOfpJ Study. Ophthalmology 1997; 104: 581–8.
T2.[iD!A 7. Keeffe JE, McCarty CA, Chang WP, Steinberg EP, Taylor HR.
< FO=PM Relative importance of VA, patient concern and patient
)u=W?5%=} lifestyle on referral for cataract surgery. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis.
U~"Y8g#qgy Sci. 1996; 37: S183.
pWv1XTs@t: 8. Curbow B, Legro MW, Brenner MH. The influence of patientrelated
N#-pl:J( variables in the timing of cataract extraction. Am. J.
H=f|X<8 Ophthalmol. 1993; 115: 614–22.
-TG ="U 9. Sletteberg OH, Høvding G, Bertelsen T. Do we operate too
pz)>y&_o many cataracts? The referred cataract patients’ own appraisal
-MTYtw( of their need for surgery. Acta Ophthalmol. Scand. 1995; 73:
b.\xPb 77–80.
3b]M\F9 10. Escarce JJ. Would eliminating differences in physician practice
iI7ocyUv style reduce geographic variations in cataract surgery rates?
ybJ wFZ80 Med. Care 1993; 31: 1106–18.
5dE=M};v 11. Livingston PM, Carson CA, Stanislavsky YL, Lee SE, Guest
IOuqC.RJ}o CS, Taylor HR. Methods for a population-based study of eye
DC-d@N+ disease: the Melbourne Visual Impairment Project. Ophthalmic
\#B<'J9.` Epidemiol. 1994; 1: 139–48.
r@Jy*2[-Jq 12. Taylor HR, West SK. A simple system for the clinical grading
Nf3UVK8LtS of lens opacities. Lens Res. 1988; 5: 175–81.
6(4d3}F 82 McCarty et al.
T:m"
eD; 13. Cochran WG. Sampling Techniques. New York: John Wiley &
V(DY!f_% Sons, 1977; 249–73.
C}Kl! 14. Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical Methods in Cancer Research. Volume
[?KGLUmTAI II – the Design and Analysis of Cohort Studies. Lyon: International
v*=P
Agency for Research on Cancer; 1987; 52–61.
0*rD'?)K+ 15. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 1996 Census of Population and
.#|?-5q/iN Housing. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1997.
b7Z o~Z 16. Livingston PM, Lee SE, McCarty CA, Taylor HR. A comparison
[x>Ju&))$ of participants with non-participants in a populationbased
E
BBd epidemiologic study: the Melbourne Visual Impairment
KAFR.h:p9 Project. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 1997; 4: 73–82.
Y-YuY 17. Programme for the Prevention of Blindness. Global Initiative for the
\P?X`]NwnO Elimination of Avoidable Blindness. Geneva: World Health
T:Klr=&V Organization, 1997.
9N}\>L)_ 18. Applegate WB, Miller ST, Elam JT, Freeman JM, Wood TO,
'EAskA]* Gettlefinger TC. Impact of cataract surgery with lens implantation
Hy[: _E on vision and physical function in elderly patients.
I_u/ JAMA 1987; 257: 1064–6.
.)!QsBU 19. Steinberg EP, Tielsch JM, Schein OD et al. National Study of
Wx{E\ l Cataract Surgery Outcomes. Variation in 4-month postoperative
}>0>OqvF outcomes as reflected in multiple outcome measures.
4.jRTL5-oj Ophthalmology 1994; 101:1131–41.
cpltTJFg 20. Klein BEK, Klein R, Moss SE. Change in visual acuity associated
c!4F0(n4 with cataract surgery. The Beaver Dam Eye Study.
^1bslCe Ophthalmology 1996; 103: 1727–31.
m3lz#Pm'0 21. McCarty CA, Keeffe JE, Taylor HR. The need for cataract
Zg(Y$ h\ surgery: projections based on lens opacity, visual acuity, and
V<0iYi;4= personal concern. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1999; 83: 62–5.
&S*~EM.l8 22. Brenner MH, Curbow B, Javitt JC, Legro MW, Sommer A.
EaO@I.[ Vision change and quality of life in the elderly. Response to
=L" 0]4K cataract surgery and treatment of other ocular conditions.
UPfO;Z`hJ Arch. Ophthalmol. 1993; 111: 680–5.
|0y#} |/
23. Schaumberg DA, Dana MR, Christen WG, Glynn RJ. A
xZ9:9/Vg systematic overview of the incidence of posterior capsule
FoyYWj?,R opacification. Ophthalmology 1998; 105: 1213–21.
!rM~
24. Mordue A, Parkin DW, Baxter C, Fawcett G, Stewart M.
D%YgS$p[M$ Thresholds for treatment in cataract surgery. J. Public Health
r<e%;S Med. 1994; 16: 393–8.
e /JQ #A 25. Norregaard JC, Bernth-Peterson P, Alonso J et al. Variations in
~hLan&T indications for cataract surgery in the United States, Denmark,
// o.+?S Canada, and Spain: results from the International Cataract
Nujnm$!,Q Surgery Outcomes Study. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1998; 82: 1107–11.