ABSTRACT
C@8WY Purpose: To quantify the prevalence of cataract, the outcomes
yA#
-}Y|]b of cataract surgery and the factors related to
9/nS?>11 unoperated cataract in Australia.
^.f`6 6/ Methods: Participants were recruited from the Visual
E5y\t_H Impairment Project: a cluster, stratified sample of more than
Ao/KB_4f*Q 5000 Victorians aged 40 years and over. At examination
(GNY::3 sites interviews, clinical examinations and lens photography
T)QT_ST.9 were performed. Cataract was defined in participants who
EFYyr f@ had: had previous cataract surgery, cortical cataract greater
(.DX</f/4 than 4/16, nuclear greater than Wilmer standard 2, or
/>i~No#Xm posterior subcapsular greater than 1 mm2.
h5.>};"@' Results: The participant group comprised 3271 Melbourne
%`~?w'
residents, 403 Melbourne nursing home residents and 1473
pzPm(M1^X rural residents.The weighted rate of any cataract in Victoria
u9 yXHf was 21.5%. The overall weighted rate of prior cataract
@9wug!, surgery was 3.79%. Two hundred and forty-nine eyes had
R3dCw:\O+Z had prior cataract surgery. Of these 249 procedures, 49
#
[0>wEq (20%) were aphakic, 6 (2.4%) had anterior chamber
!AGjiP$ intraocular lenses and 194 (78%) had posterior chamber
)|` #BC intraocular lenses.Two hundred and eleven of these operated
-X6[qLq eyes (85%) had best-corrected visual acuity of 6/12 or
kZsat4r better, the legal requirement for a driver’s license.Twentyseven
:&/b}b!)AX (11%) had visual acuity of less than 6/18 (moderate
iw$n*1M vision impairment). Complications of cataract surgery
j(;o caused reduced vision in four of the 27 eyes (15%), or 1.9%
^j1WF[GiSO of operated eyes. Three of these four eyes had undergone
5ecAev^1- intracapsular cataract extraction and the fourth eye had an
0{Kb1Ut opaque posterior capsule. No one had bilateral vision
Ba9le|c5 impairment as a result of cataract surgery. Surprisingly, no
Zu$30&U particular demographic factors (such as age, gender, rural
f~LM-7!zf} residence, occupation, employment status, health insurance
&mM[q'V status, ethnicity) were related to the presence of unoperated
oA _,jsD4 cataract.
{bSi3 oI Conclusions: Although the overall prevalence of cataract is
/puM3ZN quite high, no particular subgroup is systematically underserviced
#_,
l7q8U in terms of cataract surgery. Overall, the results of
"2}E ARa cataract surgery are very good, with the majority of eyes
Vko1{$}t achieving driving vision following cataract extraction.
]Y%?kQ^ Key words: cataract extraction, health planning, health
DKjkO5R\ services accessibility, prevalence
Z?vbe}pUM INTRODUCTION
@"6dq;" Cataract is the leading cause of blindness worldwide and, in
%U.aRSf/ Australia, cataract extractions account for the majority of all
oWZbfR9R ophthalmic procedures.1 Over the period 1985–94, the rate
<V}^c/c! of cataract surgery in Australia was twice as high as would be
%D(%
lh2 expected from the growth in the elderly population.1
} #[MV+D Although there have been a number of studies reporting
PLi [T4u the prevalence of cataract in various populations,2–6 there is
)V}u}5 little information about determinants of cataract surgery in
6QCU:2IiL the population. A previous survey of Australian ophthalmologists
*E Z'S+wR showed that patient concern and lifestyle, rather
v Kzq7E than visual acuity itself, are the primary factors for referral
)$* T>.JA for cataract surgery.7 This supports prior research which has
fE\;C bi shown that visual acuity is not a strong predictor of need for
t\hvhcbL cataract surgery.8,9 Elsewhere, socioeconomic status has
A
'Q
nL been shown to be related to cataract surgery rates.10
+%$'(ts To appropriately plan health care services, information is
n]/7UH}(<& needed about the prevalence of age-related cataract in the
W2F %E community as well as the factors associated with cataract
ddDl~&}o surgery. The purpose of this study is to quantify the prevalence
;NrN#<j(! of any cataract in Australia, to describe the factors
N5ityJIgQ related to unoperated cataract in the community and to
4uW}.7R' describe the visual outcomes of cataract surgery.
R"S,& METHODS
%)7HBj(*J Study population
k!gft'iU Details about the study methodology for the Visual
$Ik\^:- Impairment Project have been published previously.11
-q9`Btz Briefly, cluster sampling within three strata was employed to
MPINxS recruit subjects aged 40 years and over to participate.
"y_A xOH Within the Melbourne Statistical Division, nine pairs of
k%iZ.. census collector districts were randomly selected. Fourteen
WXqrx*?*+ nursing homes within a 5 km radius of these nine test sites
;?/v}$Pa were randomly chosen to recruit nursing home residents.
%&L]k>n^ Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology (2000) 28, 77–82
Z
h?1+Sz& Original Article
i^[yGXtW Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia
Sm;EWz-? Catherine A McCarty PhD, MPH, Mukesh B Nanjan PhD, Hugh R Taylor MD
%m:T?![XO Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
*5$$C&@o9 n Correspondence: Dr Cathy McCarty MPH, Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, 32 Gisborne Street, East Melbourne,
>gAq/'.Q Victoria 3002, Australia. Email:
cathy@cera.unimelb.edu.au nwlo,[ 78 McCarty et al.
Jsi [,|G Finally, four pairs of census collector districts in four rural
B_w;2ZuA Victorian communities were randomly selected to recruit rural
"Jw6.q+ residents. A household census was conducted to identify
#4. S2m4 eligible residents aged 40 years and over who had been a
%k8} IBL resident at that address for at least 6 months. At the time of
YYDLFtr2 the household census, basic information about age, sex,
J]8nbl country of birth, language spoken at home, education, use of
V#;6<H" corrective spectacles and use of eye care services was collected.
sidSY8j Eligible residents were then invited to attend a local
k;v23 examination site for a more detailed interview and examination.
ShA
I6j The study protocol was approved by the Royal Victorian
/esSM~*H Eye and Ear Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee.
X%7Y\| Assessment of cataract
DXj_\ R(} A standardized ophthalmic examination was performed after
KQ<pQkhv pupil dilatation with one drop of 10% phenylephrine
riqv v1Nce hydrochloride. Lens opacities were graded clinically at the
{l=! time of the examination and subsequently from photos using
(q+U5Ls6 the Wilmer cataract photo-grading system.12 Cortical and
*9}2Bmojv posterior subcapsular (PSC) opacities were assessed on
-[?q?w!? retroillumination and measured as the proportion (in 1/16)
:.B};;N of pupil circumference occupied by opacity. For this analysis,
5KJN](x+ cortical cataract was defined as 4/16 or greater opacity,
0}]k>ndT PSC cataract was defined as opacity equal to or greater than
7-81,ADv( 1 mm2 and nuclear cataract was defined as opacity equal to
}YHoWYR or greater than Wilmer standard 2,12 independent of visual
Ex35 acuity. Examples of the minimum opacities defined as cortical,
#"%=7( nuclear and PSC cataract are presented in Figure 1.
e"^* ~'mJ Bilateral congenital cataracts or cataracts secondary to
^ +cf intraocular inflammation or trauma were excluded from the
UPgjf analysis. Two cases of bilateral secondary cataract and eight
v/6QE;BY&Q cases of bilateral congenital cataract were excluded from the
"YD<pRVB analyses.
rkW*C'2fz A Topcon® SL5 photo slit-lamp (Topcon America Corp.,
GbG!vo Paramus, NJ, USA) with a 0.1 mm slit beam of 9.0 mm in
2bU3*m^M height set to an incident angle of 30° was used for examinations.
uN V(r" Ektachrome® 200 ASA colour slide film (Eastman
CZg$I&x Kodak Company, Rochester, NY, USA) was used to photograph
DPIiGRw the nuclear opacities. The cortical opacities were
)y-y-B=+T photographed with an Oxford® retroillumination camera
hp6S *d
(Marcher Enterprises Ltd, Hereford, UK) and T-MAX® 400
*b9=&:pU( film (Eastman Kodak). Photographs were graded separately
MnUal}MO by two research assistants and discrepancies were adjudicated
n?vrsqmZ by an independent reviewer. Any discrepancies
g83]/s+ between the clinical grades and the photograph grades were
qazM@ resolved. Except in cases where photographs were missing,
RVtb0FL the photograph grades were used in the analyses. Photograph
C0;c'4( grades were available for 4301 (84%) for cortical
SUxz &xH cataract, 4147 (81%) for nuclear cataract and 4303 (84%)
\ '6hv>W@ for PSC cataract. Cataract status was classified according to
MHJH@$|] the severity of the opacity in the worse eye.
Kf
D8S
Assessment of risk factors
]Ow
A>fb A standardized questionnaire was used to obtain information
AjB-&Z about education, employment and ethnic background.11
]cLO-A Specific information was elicited on the occurrence, duration
S1NM9xHJ and treatment of a number of medical conditions,
4vcUHa|4 including ocular trauma, arthritis, diabetes, gout, hypertension
%{g<{\@4(; and mental illness. Information about the use, dose and
w=I8f}( duration of tobacco, alcohol, analgesics and steriods were
{j.5!Nj]B collected, and a food frequency questionnaire was used to
LC)
-aw>- determine current consumption of dietary sources of antioxidants
_v:t$k#sN and use of vitamin supplements.
^2}0lP| Data management and statistical analysis
Q)S0z2 Data were collected either by direct computer entry with a
gH5E+J_$ questionnaire programmed in Paradox© (Carel Corporation,
NL%5'8F>, Ottawa, Canada) with internal consistency checks, or
}stc]L{79 on self-coding forms. Open-ended responses were coded at
=B_vQJF2 a later time. Data that were entered on the self-coded forms
^c"
wgRHc< were entered into a computer with double data entry and
-t2bHhG reconciliation of any inconsistencies. Data range and consistency
B B*]" gT checks were performed on the entire data set.
Z}6
SAS© version 6.1 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina) was
Q[J% employed for statistical analyses.
5SKj% %B2, Ninety-five per cent confidence limits around the agespecific
^%tmHDNL. rates were calculated according to Cochran13 to
v:kTZB account for the effect of the cluster sampling. Ninety-five
"HSAwe`5jU per cent confidence limits around age-standardized rates
[`^5Zb were calculated according to Breslow and Day.14 The strataspecific
uQgv ;jsPz data were weighted according to the 1996
57*`y'CW Australian Bureau of Statistics census data15 to reflect the
^Rriu $\ cataract prevalence in the entire Victorian population.
WZ`u"t^2V Univariate analyses with Student’s t-tests and chi-squared
v8Gm;~ tests were first employed to evaluate risk factors for unoperated
@
*'$QD, cataract. Any factors with P < 0.10 were then fitted
[O92JT:li into a backwards stepwise logistic regression model. For the
WBdC}S
}3t Figure 1. Minimum levels of cortical (a), nuclear (b), and posterior subcapsular (c) cataract.
ak]:ir`o final multivariate models, P < 0.05 was considered statistically
x`/
"1]Nf significant. Design effect was assessed through the use
R+Q..9P of cluster-specific models and multivariate models. The
H0tjBnu
design effect was assumed to be additive and an adjustment
e7rD,`NiV made in the variance by adding the variance associated with
{z:aZ]QhKc the design effect prior to constructing the 95% confidence
CtiTXDc_ limits.
<2Q+? L{ RESULTS
^p3"_;p)h Study population
0 ~2~^A#]\ A total of 3271 (83%) of the Melbourne residents, 403
#qqIOjS^w (90%) Melbourne nursing home residents, and 1473 (92%)
>S\D+1PV rural residents participated. In general, non-participants did
G
92\` Q not differ from participants.16 The study population was
JRfG]u6GU representative of the Victorian population and Australia as
);-?~ a whole.
UbDRzum The Melbourne residents ranged in age from 40 to
K1i@.`na/$ 98 years (mean = 59) and 1511 (46%) were male. The
d~#>.$Uu Melbourne nursing home residents ranged in age from 46 to
9p|;Hh: 101 years (mean = 82) and 85 (21%) were men. The rural
IpX.ube residents ranged in age from 40 to 103 years (mean = 60)
@ Gxnrh6 and 701 (47.5%) were men.
AP1Eiv<Hub Prevalence of cataract and prior cataract surgery
J@$h'YUF As would be expected, the rate of any cataract increases
pGS!Nn;K2 dramatically with age (Table 1). The weighted rate of any
V $'~2v{_ cataract in Victoria was 21.5% (95% CL 18.1, 24.9).
IY$v%%2WZ Although the rates varied somewhat between the three
;h|zNx0 strata, they were not significantly different as the 95% confidence
6k569c{7 limits overlapped. The per cent of cataractous eyes
LBO3){=J with best-corrected visual acuity of less than 6/12 was 12.5%
T
>BlnA (65/520) for cortical cataract, 18% for nuclear cataract
dY|~"6d) (97/534) and 14.4% (27/187) for PSC cataract. Cataract
{w/{)BnPG surgery also rose dramatically with age. The overall
=rH '
\7T weighted rate of prior cataract surgery in Victoria was
H]i.\
2z 3.79% (95% CL 2.97, 4.60) (Table 2).
#Tm^$\*h\] Risk factors for unoperated cataract
"$@>n(w Cases of cataract that had not been removed were classified
j%_{tB as unoperated cataract. Risk factor analyses for unoperated
4gyC?#Ede cataract were not performed with the nursing home residents
}bkQr)us as information about risk factor exposure was not
|r|<cc# available for this cohort. The following factors were assessed
%8U/
!(.g in relation to unoperated cataract: age, sex, residence
fLGZ@-qA0 (urban/rural), language spoken at home (a measure of ethnic
'r/+za:2 integration), country of birth, parents’ country of birth (a
E;I'b:U` measure of ethnicity), years since migration, education, use
"`va_Mk of ophthalmic services, use of optometric services, private
3c%dErch health insurance status, duration of distance glasses use,
=I(F(AE glaucoma, age-related maculopathy and employment status.
|IN{8 In this cross sectional study it was not possible to assess the
|{STkV] level of visual acuity that would predict a patient’s having
2b&&3u8 cataract surgery, as visual acuity data prior to cataract
u;@~P surgery were not available.
|8m2i1XG The significant risk factors for unoperated cataract in univariate
}KEL{VUX analyses were related to: whether a participant had
j'\!p):H ever seen an optometrist, seen an ophthalmologist or been
{Yt@H diagnosed with glaucoma; and participants’ employment
+m
gm39 status (currently employed) and age. These significant
VLL CdZ% factors were placed in a backwards stepwise logistic regression
W`vgH/lSnZ model. The factors that remained significantly related
[5"F=tT7WP to unoperated cataract were whether participants had ever
m|/q
o seen an ophthalmologist, seen an optometrist and been
< 2mbR diagnosed with glaucoma. None of the demographic factors
],?$& were associated with unoperated cataract in the multivariate
neLQ>WT
L
model.
$vC}Fq The per cent of participants with unoperated cataract
1xf
Pe# who said that they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with
1:.I0x! Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia 79
Dr_ (u<[ Table 1. Prevalence of any cataracta (excluding previous cataract surgery) by age, gender and cohort
[$x&J6jF. Age group Sex Urban Rural Nursing home Weighted total
y\C_HCU H (years) (%) (%) (%)
*vqr+jr9 40–49 Male 2.56 4.04 0.00 3.00 (1.91, 4.08)
Cih~cwE Female 2.61 1.70 0.00 2.36 (1.61, 3.10)
+[lv
`tr
50–59 Male 7.69 6.94 0.00 7.47 (5.80, 9.15)
o<\uHr3 Female 6.67 7.56 0.00 6.92 (5.60, 8.24)
V_Xq&!HN[ 60–69 Male 20.7 25.0 10.0 22.0 (18.1, 26.0)
@OB7TI_/
Female 27.9 35.7 37.5 30.3 (26.0, 34.7)
>Ohh)$ 70–79 Male 43.1 58.7 39.1 48.1 (41.2, 55.1)
NB.s2I7 Female 58.6 66.2 55.6 61.0 (56.0, 65.9)
GKg&lM!O$ 80–89 Male 74.0 89.3 92.0 79.3 (72.3, 86.3)
<rbzsn"a Female 91.9 97.0 80.2 92.6 (86.4, 98.8)
zHg1K,t: 90 + Male 100.0 100.0 75.0 98.8 (96.2, 100.0)
gK#G8V-, Female 100.0 100.0 93.8 98.6 (97.0, 100.0)
` 0z8J*T] Age-standardized
eKv{N\E (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)
H[e=^JuD aCortical > 4/16, nuclear > standard 2, posterior subcapsular > 1 mm2
d95 $w8> their current vision was 30% (290/683), compared with 27%
OH_ m ZA (26/95) of participants with prior cataract surgery (chisquared,
"0sk(kT 1 d.f. = 0.25, P = 0.62).
ej;\a:JL Outcomes of cataract surgery
.dQEr~f #} Two hundred and forty-nine eyes had undergone prior
"T~ce@ cataract surgery. Of these 249 operated eyes, 49 (20%) were
Rch?@O#J left aphakic, 6 (2.4%) had anterior chamber intraocular
1$toowb"Zy lenses and 194 (78%) had posterior chamber intraocular
]7/6u.G7R lenses. The rate of capsulotomy in the eyes with intact
CYHo~VIK posterior capsules was 36% (73/202). Fifteen per cent of
"74Rn"d5 eyes (17/114) with a clear posterior capsule had bestcorrected
i
[N=. visual acuity of less than 6/12 compared with 43%
JIh:IR(ta of eyes (6/14) with opaque capsules, and 15% of eyes
.ZVADVg
\ (11/73) with prior capsulotomies (chi-squared, 2 d.f. = 7.21,
i!7|YAu P = 0.027).
,+U,(P5>s The percentage of eyes with best-corrected visual acuity
6 66f;h of 6/12 or better was 96% (302/314) for eyes without
]dU/
;8/% cataract, 88% (1417/1609) for eyes with prevalent cataract
_I<LB0kgf. and 85% (211/249) for eyes with operated cataract (chisquared,
a`E1rK' 2 d.f. = 22.3), P < 0.001). Twenty-seven of the
[[A}MF*@ operated eyes (11%) had visual acuities of less than 6/18
LmjzH@3
(moderate vision impairment) (Fig. 2). A cause of this
aS)Gj?Odf moderate visual impairment (but not the only cause) in four
/^9K Zj (15%) eyes was secondary to cataract surgery. Three of these
7]pi .1i four eyes had undergone intracapsular cataract extraction
cms9] and the fourth eye had an opaque posterior capsule. No one
n~C!PXE had bilateral vision impairment as a result of their cataract
<x O"
E%t surgery.
uNXKUJ V0 DISCUSSION
_I
A{I To our knowledge, this is the first paper to systematically
|x/00XhS assess the prevalence of current cataract, previous cataract
|4?O4QN surgery, predictors of unoperated cataract and the outcomes
HTw7l]] of cataract surgery in a population-based sample. The Visual
*c{X\!YBh Impairment Project is unique in that the sampling frame and
9TZ4ffXV* high response rate have ensured that the study population is
k*"FMJG_ representative of Australians aged 40 years and over. Therefore,
M~"93 Q`f^ these data can be used to plan age-related cataract
P(Wr[lH\y services throughout Australia.
c@<vFoq We found the rate of any cataract in those over the age
yf@DaIG of 40 years to be 22%. Although relatively high, this rate is
`p\@b~GM significantly less than was reported in a number of previous
e0cVg studies,2,4,6 with the exception of the Casteldaccia Eye
KXvBJA$ Study.5 However, it is difficult to compare rates of cataract
J0V\_ja- between studies because of different methodologies and
V^/]h
u
cataract definitions employed in the various studies, as well
<o:|0=Swb as the different age structures of the study populations.
OHyBNJ Other studies have used less conservative definitions of
de$0D fK cataract, thus leading to higher rates of cataract as defined.
Bkh1VAT In most large epidemiologic studies of cataract, visual acuity
{(j1#9+9 has not been included in the definition of cataract.
H%^j yGS Therefore, the prevalence of cataract may not reflect the
Jh!'"7 actual need for cataract surgery in the community.
zM+eb| >cr 80 McCarty et al.
p"ElO,\ Table 2. Prevalence of previous cataract by age, gender and cohort
N&K`bmtD Age group Gender Urban Rural Nursing home Weighted total
Ks_B%d (years) (%) (%) (%)
jt,dr3|/n 40–49 Male 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.80 (0.00, 1.81)
*!-J"h Female 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (
KE*8Y4#9 50–59 Male 0.68 0.58 0.00 0.65 (0.13, 1.17)
j]5mzz~ Female 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.41 (0.00, 1.00)
Dg~L" 60–69 Male 2.12 7.59 0.00 3.80 (1.41, 6.19)
@24)*d^1 Female 2.11 3.51 0.00 2.54 (1.81, 3.26)
ObIL w 70–79 Male 8.22 9.85 8.70 8.75 (6.38, 11.1)
J_ y+.p-
5 Female 7.21 7.86 7.02 7.41 (5.36, 9.46)
JK_(!
80–89 Male 25.0 30.0 14.3 26.2 (17.0, 35.4)
o b,%); m Female 27.9 25.6 18.3 26.7 (20.2, 33.3)
zc#$hIi 90 + Male 0.00 16.7 66.7 9.19 (0.00, 21.5)
.QVZ! Female 58.3 100.0 26.9 63.1 (44.4, 81.8)
8\])p sb9 Age-standardized
<yw(7 (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)
z [9f Figure 2. Visual acuity in eyes that had undergone cataract
/.>8e%) surgery, n = 249. h, Presenting; j, best-corrected.
Htn''adg5 Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia 81
4t e QG The weighted prevalence of prior cataract surgery in the
4k4 d% Visual Impairment Project (3.6%) was similar to the crude
-H-:b7 rate in the Beaver Dam Eye Study4 (3.1%), but less than the
>uR0Xs;V crude rate in the Blue Mountains Eye Study6 (6.0%).
T2/lvvG However, the age-standardized rate in the Blue Mountains
U\~9YX8 Eye Study (standardized to the age distribution of the urban
noL&>G Visual Impairment Project cohort) was found to be less than
9qcA+gz:| the Visual Impairment Project (standardized rate = 1.36%,
u zgQ_ 95% CL 1.25, 1.47). The incidence of cataract surgery in
yMVlTO Australia has exceeded population growth.1 This is due,
RF$2p4=[ perhaps, to advances in surgical techniques and lens
9?J
3G,& implants that have changed the risk–benefit ratio.
ckhU@C|=* The Global Initiative for the Elimination of Avoidable
7uq/C#N Blindness, sponsored by the World Health Organization,
/|MHZ$Y9w? states that cataract surgical services should be provided that
aTL u7C\-e ‘have a high success rate in terms of visual outcome and
8;\
improved quality of life’,17 although the ‘high success rate’ is
9Q
/t+ not defined. Population- and clinic-based studies conducted
:XFr"aSt in the United States have demonstrated marked improvement
lC8Z@wkjO in visual acuity following cataract surgery.18–20 We
`G0GWh)`x found that 85% of eyes that had undergone cataract extraction
e !2SO*O had visual acuity of 6/12 or better. Previously, we have
@]F1J shown that participants with prevalent cataract in this
!> 2kH cohort are more likely to express dissatisfaction with their
hb="J349 current vision than participants without cataract or participants
z&KrG with prior cataract surgery.21 In a national study in the
` G-V
% United States, researchers found that the change in patients’
BL[N ratings of their vision difficulties and satisfaction with their
oT0TbZu% vision after cataract surgery were more highly related to
hH(w O\s their change in visual functioning score than to their change
{16]8-pe in visual acuity.19 Furthermore, improvement in visual function
6Q*Zy[= has been shown to be associated with improvement in
sD ,=_q@ overall quality of life.22
wG@f~$ A recent review found that the incidence of visually
C116c" significant posterior capsule opacification following
VSjt|F)t cataract surgery to be greater than 25%.23 We found 36%
{|{;:_.> capsulotomy in our population and that this was associated
ORx6r=zg with visual acuity similar to that of eyes with a clear
Lvd es.0| capsule, but significantly better than that of eyes with an
\)`OEGdOR\ opaque capsule.
'4ip~>3?w A number of studies have shown that the demand and
)lZoXt_
3 timing of cataract surgery vary according to visual acuity,
{&ykpu090 degree of handicap and socioeconomic factors.8–10,24,25 We
Mj6
0?k have also shown previously that ophthalmologists are more
!9t,#?! likely to refer a patient for cataract surgery if the patient is
z50
P*
eS employed and less likely to refer a nursing home resident.7
z_8lf_N In the Visual Impairment Project, we did not find that any
+3F%soum95 particular subgroup of the population was at greater risk of
2h:{6Gq8 having unoperated cataract. Universal access to health care
i_
e%HG in Australia may explain the fact that people without
p1N3AhXY Medicare are more likely to delay cataract operations in the
I%:\"g"c USA,8 but not having private health insurance is not associated
Vbv)C3ezD with unoperated cataract in Australia.
4;*jE ( In summary, cataract is a significant public health problem
C2{*m{
D in that one in four people in their 80s will have had cataract
&WNIL13DK surgery. The importance of age-related cataract surgery will
_#K?yP? increase further with the ageing of the population: the
/>n!2'! number of people over age 60 years is expected to double in
jwpahy;\WL the next 20 years. Cataract surgery services are well
5=#2@qp accessed by the Victorian population and the visual outcomes
FsLd&$?T& of cataract surgery have been shown to be very good.
hg2Ywzfm- These data can be used to plan for age-related cataract
X-*LA*xbN surgical services in Australia in the future as the need for
lK_T%1Gz cataract extractions increases.
y$+=>p|d.^ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
2HO2 The Visual Impairment Project was funded in part by grants
I?
="Er[g} from the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, the
vnWt8?)]^ National Health and Medical Research Council, the Ansell
#(QS5J&Qq Ophthalmology Foundation, the Dorothy Edols Estate and
NL,6<ZOon, the Jack Brockhoff Foundation. Dr McCarty is the recipient
%l?*w~x of a Wagstaff Fellowship in Ophthalmology from the Royal
OLo?=1&;; Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital.
aJ@lT&. REFERENCES
$xCJ5M4 1. Keeffe JE, Taylor HR. Cataract surgery in Australia 1985–94.
X.sOZb?$ Aust. N.Z. J. Ophthalmol. 1996; 24: 313–17.
W[R`],x` 2. Sperduto RD, Hiller R. The prevalence of nuclear, cortical,
Po&'#TC1 and posterior subcapsular lens opacities in a general population
E
6+ ooB[ sample. Ophthalmology 1984; 91: 815–18.
E@EP9X
> 3. Maraini G, Pasquini P, Sperduto RD et al. Distribution of lens
3
?D{iMRM opacities in the Italian-American case–control study of agerelated
bI^F( cataract. Ophthalmology 1990; 97: 752–6.
3-oKY*jO 4. Klein BEK, Klein R, Linton KLP. Prevalence of age-related
J:J/AgJuH lens opacities in a population. The Beaver Dam Eye Study.
3,EtyJ3[Bh Ophthalmology 1992; 99: 546–52.
S=W^iA6> 5. Guiffrè G, Giammanco R, Di Pace F, Ponte F. Casteldaccia eye
"_2;+@+ study: prevalence of cataract in the adult and elderly population
(>,
b5g of a Mediterranean town. Int. Ophthalmol. 1995; 18:
AQ0zs
y 363–71.
n1aOpz6` 6. Mitchell P, Cumming RG, Attebo K, Panchapakesan J.
:wEy""*N0 Prevalence of cataract in Australia. The Blue Mountains Eye
cltx(C> Study. Ophthalmology 1997; 104: 581–8.
<2fy(9y 7. Keeffe JE, McCarty CA, Chang WP, Steinberg EP, Taylor HR.
R T~oJ~t; Relative importance of VA, patient concern and patient
w+Gav4 lifestyle on referral for cataract surgery. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis.
6oFA=CjU{ Sci. 1996; 37: S183.
K"hnGYt? 8. Curbow B, Legro MW, Brenner MH. The influence of patientrelated
]omBq<ox'Y variables in the timing of cataract extraction. Am. J.
z_=V6MDM Ophthalmol. 1993; 115: 614–22.
tv
Zq):c 9. Sletteberg OH, Høvding G, Bertelsen T. Do we operate too
-r]L MQ many cataracts? The referred cataract patients’ own appraisal
dt>9mF q of their need for surgery. Acta Ophthalmol. Scand. 1995; 73:
TA8 77–80.
-%Ce 10. Escarce JJ. Would eliminating differences in physician practice
7z&$\qu2 style reduce geographic variations in cataract surgery rates?
#3{{[i(;i Med. Care 1993; 31: 1106–18.
mg>wv[ 7 11. Livingston PM, Carson CA, Stanislavsky YL, Lee SE, Guest
]g }5p4*& CS, Taylor HR. Methods for a population-based study of eye
ic4hO>p& disease: the Melbourne Visual Impairment Project. Ophthalmic
d{7)_Sbky Epidemiol. 1994; 1: 139–48.
^t
*Ba>A 12. Taylor HR, West SK. A simple system for the clinical grading
6.$z!~8 of lens opacities. Lens Res. 1988; 5: 175–81.
\zwm:@lG 82 McCarty et al.
g$vOWSI+ 13. Cochran WG. Sampling Techniques. New York: John Wiley &
(uy\~Zb Sons, 1977; 249–73.
'm"Ez'sS 14. Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical Methods in Cancer Research. Volume
DO9K II – the Design and Analysis of Cohort Studies. Lyon: International
'H4?V Agency for Research on Cancer; 1987; 52–61.
&}|`h8JA]K 15. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 1996 Census of Population and
Y"^.6 Housing. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1997.
fC[~X[H 16. Livingston PM, Lee SE, McCarty CA, Taylor HR. A comparison
Z}Q/u^Z of participants with non-participants in a populationbased
WS?Y8~+{5 epidemiologic study: the Melbourne Visual Impairment
E1`_[=8a9 Project. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 1997; 4: 73–82.
2- (}=N 17. Programme for the Prevention of Blindness. Global Initiative for the
\hb$v Elimination of Avoidable Blindness. Geneva: World Health
Kb-m Organization, 1997.
<b\8<mTr 18. Applegate WB, Miller ST, Elam JT, Freeman JM, Wood TO,
4x?I,cAN Gettlefinger TC. Impact of cataract surgery with lens implantation
-w8?Ur1x: on vision and physical function in elderly patients.
&.
#dZ}J JAMA 1987; 257: 1064–6.
T&bB8tQk 19. Steinberg EP, Tielsch JM, Schein OD et al. National Study of
1jAuW~ Cataract Surgery Outcomes. Variation in 4-month postoperative
,^ dpn outcomes as reflected in multiple outcome measures.
Nez '1 Ophthalmology 1994; 101:1131–41.
tw.z5 20. Klein BEK, Klein R, Moss SE. Change in visual acuity associated
86dz Jh with cataract surgery. The Beaver Dam Eye Study.
$2blF)uYE Ophthalmology 1996; 103: 1727–31.
rSm#/)4A 21. McCarty CA, Keeffe JE, Taylor HR. The need for cataract
B<$6Dj%L surgery: projections based on lens opacity, visual acuity, and
q|IU+r:! 3 personal concern. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1999; 83: 62–5.
yJlRW!@&: 22. Brenner MH, Curbow B, Javitt JC, Legro MW, Sommer A.
~Ga{=OM?? Vision change and quality of life in the elderly. Response to
{0AlQ6.@> cataract surgery and treatment of other ocular conditions.
bk
i:u Arch. Ophthalmol. 1993; 111: 680–5.
x") Bmw$ 23. Schaumberg DA, Dana MR, Christen WG, Glynn RJ. A
d-W*`:Q systematic overview of the incidence of posterior capsule
n!lE|if opacification. Ophthalmology 1998; 105: 1213–21.
>?G!>kw 24. Mordue A, Parkin DW, Baxter C, Fawcett G, Stewart M.
EU'rdG*t/R Thresholds for treatment in cataract surgery. J. Public Health
:O?3lj) Med. 1994; 16: 393–8.
\yLFV9P}EL 25. Norregaard JC, Bernth-Peterson P, Alonso J et al. Variations in
D5].^*AbZ indications for cataract surgery in the United States, Denmark,
'P4V_VMK Canada, and Spain: results from the International Cataract
B
GOS( Surgery Outcomes Study. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1998; 82: 1107–11.