ABSTRACT
U9 1 &| Purpose: To quantify the prevalence of cataract, the outcomes
^cYStMjpy of cataract surgery and the factors related to
UZzNVIXA% unoperated cataract in Australia.
J.1O/Pw!.a Methods: Participants were recruited from the Visual
X AQGG> Impairment Project: a cluster, stratified sample of more than
Ct4LkmD 5000 Victorians aged 40 years and over. At examination
fuq(
2&^ sites interviews, clinical examinations and lens photography
#v{ Y=$L were performed. Cataract was defined in participants who
-glugVq had: had previous cataract surgery, cortical cataract greater
5\okU"{d7 than 4/16, nuclear greater than Wilmer standard 2, or
u3U4U
K posterior subcapsular greater than 1 mm2.
x>}B# Results: The participant group comprised 3271 Melbourne
a
"R7JjH residents, 403 Melbourne nursing home residents and 1473
ZTN
(irK rural residents.The weighted rate of any cataract in Victoria
he"L*p*H was 21.5%. The overall weighted rate of prior cataract
e"]"F{Q surgery was 3.79%. Two hundred and forty-nine eyes had
TI}}1ScA' had prior cataract surgery. Of these 249 procedures, 49
G3G/xC" (20%) were aphakic, 6 (2.4%) had anterior chamber
J0=7'@(p intraocular lenses and 194 (78%) had posterior chamber
Do|]eD intraocular lenses.Two hundred and eleven of these operated
]fj- `== eyes (85%) had best-corrected visual acuity of 6/12 or
z<hFK+j,'^ better, the legal requirement for a driver’s license.Twentyseven
:pRF*^eU (11%) had visual acuity of less than 6/18 (moderate
uS~#4;R vision impairment). Complications of cataract surgery
YydA6IK4 caused reduced vision in four of the 27 eyes (15%), or 1.9%
te i`/ of operated eyes. Three of these four eyes had undergone
u#1%P5r&X intracapsular cataract extraction and the fourth eye had an
k}GjD2m opaque posterior capsule. No one had bilateral vision
ylu2R0] ( impairment as a result of cataract surgery. Surprisingly, no
-OrR $w|
e particular demographic factors (such as age, gender, rural
{(4# )K2g% residence, occupation, employment status, health insurance
k'Gw!p} status, ethnicity) were related to the presence of unoperated
:}Ok$^5s cataract.
B@ {&< Conclusions: Although the overall prevalence of cataract is
I.1D*!tz quite high, no particular subgroup is systematically underserviced
WfZF~$li` in terms of cataract surgery. Overall, the results of
:$?Q D cataract surgery are very good, with the majority of eyes
~O{W;Cyh achieving driving vision following cataract extraction.
?Nf
5w Key words: cataract extraction, health planning, health
zzJja/mp services accessibility, prevalence
=s;M]: INTRODUCTION
?DPHo)w Cataract is the leading cause of blindness worldwide and, in
~EEs}i Australia, cataract extractions account for the majority of all
v>H=,.`0\ ophthalmic procedures.1 Over the period 1985–94, the rate
G(/D
tY] of cataract surgery in Australia was twice as high as would be
!77NG4B expected from the growth in the elderly population.1
=xL )$DTg) Although there have been a number of studies reporting
'N\&<dT> the prevalence of cataract in various populations,2–6 there is
o_f-GO little information about determinants of cataract surgery in
[ ny6W9 the population. A previous survey of Australian ophthalmologists
@pFj9[N showed that patient concern and lifestyle, rather
:U'Cor
H than visual acuity itself, are the primary factors for referral
)*|(i] for cataract surgery.7 This supports prior research which has
iidT~l shown that visual acuity is not a strong predictor of need for
Dz;HAyPj cataract surgery.8,9 Elsewhere, socioeconomic status has
fPqr6OYz been shown to be related to cataract surgery rates.10
ab.tH$:< To appropriately plan health care services, information is
@0NJ{ needed about the prevalence of age-related cataract in the
eg<pa'Hw community as well as the factors associated with cataract
y9 L14
surgery. The purpose of this study is to quantify the prevalence
z-r2!^q27 of any cataract in Australia, to describe the factors
s^hR\iY related to unoperated cataract in the community and to
tg\|? describe the visual outcomes of cataract surgery.
)8,|-o= METHODS
QkQ!Ep( Study population
!wE}(0BTx Details about the study methodology for the Visual
S,jZ3^ Impairment Project have been published previously.11
fCw*$:O Briefly, cluster sampling within three strata was employed to
w7TJv4_ recruit subjects aged 40 years and over to participate.
33Az$GXFsq Within the Melbourne Statistical Division, nine pairs of
,Nm$i"Lg census collector districts were randomly selected. Fourteen
~h$wH{-U# nursing homes within a 5 km radius of these nine test sites
vB0RKk}d5 were randomly chosen to recruit nursing home residents.
F@YKFk+a Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology (2000) 28, 77–82
B?bW1 Original Article
A7Po 3n%Q Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia
]?+{aS-]?k Catherine A McCarty PhD, MPH, Mukesh B Nanjan PhD, Hugh R Taylor MD
1q7tiMvV- Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
YJeyIYCs<
n Correspondence: Dr Cathy McCarty MPH, Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, 32 Gisborne Street, East Melbourne,
2JGL;U$ Victoria 3002, Australia. Email:
cathy@cera.unimelb.edu.au sD;M
!K_ 78 McCarty et al.
4?\:{1X= Finally, four pairs of census collector districts in four rural
h^UKT`9vt Victorian communities were randomly selected to recruit rural
C1kYl0zR[ residents. A household census was conducted to identify
X}ma] eligible residents aged 40 years and over who had been a
KLW n?` resident at that address for at least 6 months. At the time of
^x>Qf(b the household census, basic information about age, sex,
>$WQxbwM( country of birth, language spoken at home, education, use of
ia @'%8 corrective spectacles and use of eye care services was collected.
B;>{0
s Eligible residents were then invited to attend a local
W,5Hx1z R examination site for a more detailed interview and examination.
1\*\?\T>_ The study protocol was approved by the Royal Victorian
"hxN !,DEZ Eye and Ear Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee.
m,i,n9C-> Assessment of cataract
^!<dgBNj A standardized ophthalmic examination was performed after
~}EMk 3 pupil dilatation with one drop of 10% phenylephrine
afBE{ hydrochloride. Lens opacities were graded clinically at the
}o4N<%/+ time of the examination and subsequently from photos using
K_)eWf0a the Wilmer cataract photo-grading system.12 Cortical and
ajR%c2G; posterior subcapsular (PSC) opacities were assessed on
!G^L/?z3 retroillumination and measured as the proportion (in 1/16)
. o7m! of pupil circumference occupied by opacity. For this analysis,
J%09^5:-z cortical cataract was defined as 4/16 or greater opacity,
xsd_Uu
* PSC cataract was defined as opacity equal to or greater than
00v&lQBW 1 mm2 and nuclear cataract was defined as opacity equal to
|8>3`w! or greater than Wilmer standard 2,12 independent of visual
f=C ,e/sw acuity. Examples of the minimum opacities defined as cortical,
wO ?+Nh nuclear and PSC cataract are presented in Figure 1.
Y}#h5\ Bilateral congenital cataracts or cataracts secondary to
\PDd$syDA intraocular inflammation or trauma were excluded from the
NH$r
Z7$ analysis. Two cases of bilateral secondary cataract and eight
A+6 n# cases of bilateral congenital cataract were excluded from the
/| #&px)G analyses.
4wC+S9I#E^ A Topcon® SL5 photo slit-lamp (Topcon America Corp.,
JJ;[, Paramus, NJ, USA) with a 0.1 mm slit beam of 9.0 mm in
rSXh;\MfB4 height set to an incident angle of 30° was used for examinations.
G!K]W:m Ektachrome® 200 ASA colour slide film (Eastman
,'[<bP'%_ Kodak Company, Rochester, NY, USA) was used to photograph
3a.kBzus the nuclear opacities. The cortical opacities were
!vG'J\*xc photographed with an Oxford® retroillumination camera
64hk2a8 (Marcher Enterprises Ltd, Hereford, UK) and T-MAX® 400
n1!?"m! film (Eastman Kodak). Photographs were graded separately
/|xra8?H[ by two research assistants and discrepancies were adjudicated
Neg,qOt by an independent reviewer. Any discrepancies
^G6RjJxqp8 between the clinical grades and the photograph grades were
CPNL
94x resolved. Except in cases where photographs were missing,
pdE3r$C the photograph grades were used in the analyses. Photograph
3p0LN'q]A grades were available for 4301 (84%) for cortical
J,Ks0MA cataract, 4147 (81%) for nuclear cataract and 4303 (84%)
@|Rrf*J?% for PSC cataract. Cataract status was classified according to
os/vtyP:a the severity of the opacity in the worse eye.
gx%|Pgd Assessment of risk factors
bV ZMW/w A standardized questionnaire was used to obtain information
Mbjvh2z about education, employment and ethnic background.11
]Kr
`9r), Specific information was elicited on the occurrence, duration
6R=W}q4 and treatment of a number of medical conditions,
7b<yVP;{ including ocular trauma, arthritis, diabetes, gout, hypertension
I1
PuHf Qs and mental illness. Information about the use, dose and
!Q#{o^{Y~ duration of tobacco, alcohol, analgesics and steriods were
;3'.C~ collected, and a food frequency questionnaire was used to
0qX3v<+[6 determine current consumption of dietary sources of antioxidants
\hB5@e4i2 and use of vitamin supplements.
g]*#%Xa Data management and statistical analysis
3-&QRR#p Data were collected either by direct computer entry with a
)E~79! questionnaire programmed in Paradox© (Carel Corporation,
0{=`on; Ottawa, Canada) with internal consistency checks, or
s0PrbL%
_` on self-coding forms. Open-ended responses were coded at
5H ue7'LS a later time. Data that were entered on the self-coded forms
]MxC_V+P` were entered into a computer with double data entry and
ra
o[VZ reconciliation of any inconsistencies. Data range and consistency
;UxP
Kpl checks were performed on the entire data set.
^k9kJ+x^S2 SAS© version 6.1 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina) was
o_'p3nD employed for statistical analyses.
78/Zk}I
] Ninety-five per cent confidence limits around the agespecific
"sG=w
jcw^ rates were calculated according to Cochran13 to
-4cXRv] account for the effect of the cluster sampling. Ninety-five
/
oriW;OF per cent confidence limits around age-standardized rates
vMS
|$L were calculated according to Breslow and Day.14 The strataspecific
7(5
4/ data were weighted according to the 1996
>k'c'7/ Australian Bureau of Statistics census data15 to reflect the
~m$Y$,uH cataract prevalence in the entire Victorian population.
RRI"d~~F6 Univariate analyses with Student’s t-tests and chi-squared
;A*`e$ tests were first employed to evaluate risk factors for unoperated
v-PXZ'7~ cataract. Any factors with P < 0.10 were then fitted
^_f+15]D into a backwards stepwise logistic regression model. For the
` eXaT8 Figure 1. Minimum levels of cortical (a), nuclear (b), and posterior subcapsular (c) cataract.
QnJZr:4b final multivariate models, P < 0.05 was considered statistically
gntxNp[9T significant. Design effect was assessed through the use
VSSu&Q of cluster-specific models and multivariate models. The
PBp^|t]E> design effect was assumed to be additive and an adjustment
hy`?E6=9+ made in the variance by adding the variance associated with
K2<9mDn& the design effect prior to constructing the 95% confidence
hK_LEwd; limits.
oomT)gO 6* RESULTS
m_)FC-/pSl Study population
<UQe.K" A total of 3271 (83%) of the Melbourne residents, 403
^G.B+dG@`x (90%) Melbourne nursing home residents, and 1473 (92%)
c\Q7"!e rural residents participated. In general, non-participants did
W#hj 1 not differ from participants.16 The study population was
/|D*w^> representative of the Victorian population and Australia as
IkGfnXJ a whole.
RE/~#k@a The Melbourne residents ranged in age from 40 to
HxIIO[h 98 years (mean = 59) and 1511 (46%) were male. The
OR;uqV@ Melbourne nursing home residents ranged in age from 46 to
MpF$xzh 101 years (mean = 82) and 85 (21%) were men. The rural
* /:x sI residents ranged in age from 40 to 103 years (mean = 60)
6x%h6<#xh* and 701 (47.5%) were men.
/!3@]xz* Prevalence of cataract and prior cataract surgery
FW21 U< As would be expected, the rate of any cataract increases
23DiW#
o' dramatically with age (Table 1). The weighted rate of any
;N0~;I cataract in Victoria was 21.5% (95% CL 18.1, 24.9).
{o.FlX Although the rates varied somewhat between the three
opc/e strata, they were not significantly different as the 95% confidence
:gep:4&u limits overlapped. The per cent of cataractous eyes
rV T{90, with best-corrected visual acuity of less than 6/12 was 12.5%
>kW@~WDMu (65/520) for cortical cataract, 18% for nuclear cataract
UOxkO (97/534) and 14.4% (27/187) for PSC cataract. Cataract
N _86t surgery also rose dramatically with age. The overall
i:OK8Q{VI weighted rate of prior cataract surgery in Victoria was
!& z(:d 3.79% (95% CL 2.97, 4.60) (Table 2).
):b$xNn Risk factors for unoperated cataract
d~1gMz+) Cases of cataract that had not been removed were classified
@Bf%s(Uj+ as unoperated cataract. Risk factor analyses for unoperated
Q+W1lv8R cataract were not performed with the nursing home residents
ZHm7Isa1 as information about risk factor exposure was not
T^Ze3L] available for this cohort. The following factors were assessed
d\jPdA.a= in relation to unoperated cataract: age, sex, residence
F)'.g d (urban/rural), language spoken at home (a measure of ethnic
e-"nB]n^/ integration), country of birth, parents’ country of birth (a
x6e}( &p* measure of ethnicity), years since migration, education, use
WRrd'{sB of ophthalmic services, use of optometric services, private
ucG@?@JENm health insurance status, duration of distance glasses use,
T<55a6NoK glaucoma, age-related maculopathy and employment status.
nh!a)]c[ In this cross sectional study it was not possible to assess the
:[hgxJu+ level of visual acuity that would predict a patient’s having
L;'"A#Pa cataract surgery, as visual acuity data prior to cataract
=[@zF9 surgery were not available.
z6w3"9Um The significant risk factors for unoperated cataract in univariate
a{qM2P(S analyses were related to: whether a participant had
4
:dH] ever seen an optometrist, seen an ophthalmologist or been
"3)4vuX@;c diagnosed with glaucoma; and participants’ employment
o .qf _A status (currently employed) and age. These significant
R}4So1 factors were placed in a backwards stepwise logistic regression
LRb{hUt= model. The factors that remained significantly related
AigS!- to unoperated cataract were whether participants had ever
nysUZB
seen an ophthalmologist, seen an optometrist and been
|!"`MIw, diagnosed with glaucoma. None of the demographic factors
C0}IE,] were associated with unoperated cataract in the multivariate
37|&?|| model.
m6[0Kws& The per cent of participants with unoperated cataract
O0pDd4)" who said that they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with
zY('t!u8 Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia 79
sU@nc!&Y@ Table 1. Prevalence of any cataracta (excluding previous cataract surgery) by age, gender and cohort
]2\VweV Age group Sex Urban Rural Nursing home Weighted total
Db1pW=66: (years) (%) (%) (%)
cxr=k%~}J 40–49 Male 2.56 4.04 0.00 3.00 (1.91, 4.08)
DIzH`|Y Female 2.61 1.70 0.00 2.36 (1.61, 3.10)
1r]IogI 50–59 Male 7.69 6.94 0.00 7.47 (5.80, 9.15)
WzF !6n!h
Female 6.67 7.56 0.00 6.92 (5.60, 8.24)
~R2 6 60–69 Male 20.7 25.0 10.0 22.0 (18.1, 26.0)
aW`Lec{. Female 27.9 35.7 37.5 30.3 (26.0, 34.7)
'-"/ =j&d[ 70–79 Male 43.1 58.7 39.1 48.1 (41.2, 55.1)
HFaj-~b Female 58.6 66.2 55.6 61.0 (56.0, 65.9)
TG+VEL |T 80–89 Male 74.0 89.3 92.0 79.3 (72.3, 86.3)
)>`G Female 91.9 97.0 80.2 92.6 (86.4, 98.8)
[3--(#R\}? 90 + Male 100.0 100.0 75.0 98.8 (96.2, 100.0)
e[/dv)J Female 100.0 100.0 93.8 98.6 (97.0, 100.0)
:"
IE Age-standardized
eK!V
); (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)
iCcB@GlA aCortical > 4/16, nuclear > standard 2, posterior subcapsular > 1 mm2
YGPy
@-,E
their current vision was 30% (290/683), compared with 27%
thvYL.U: (26/95) of participants with prior cataract surgery (chisquared,
5_z33,q2 1 d.f. = 0.25, P = 0.62).
LM-J !44 Outcomes of cataract surgery
bdibaN-h Two hundred and forty-nine eyes had undergone prior
4W)B'+ZK8 cataract surgery. Of these 249 operated eyes, 49 (20%) were
cvfr)K[0 left aphakic, 6 (2.4%) had anterior chamber intraocular
x\s|n{ lenses and 194 (78%) had posterior chamber intraocular
yA.4G_|I lenses. The rate of capsulotomy in the eyes with intact
- qy6Un+ posterior capsules was 36% (73/202). Fifteen per cent of
[vHv0" eyes (17/114) with a clear posterior capsule had bestcorrected
NCk r /#! visual acuity of less than 6/12 compared with 43%
X90J! of eyes (6/14) with opaque capsules, and 15% of eyes
\a6^LD}B (11/73) with prior capsulotomies (chi-squared, 2 d.f. = 7.21,
0;:.B
j P = 0.027).
q&/Yg,p\ The percentage of eyes with best-corrected visual acuity
}=6'MjF] of 6/12 or better was 96% (302/314) for eyes without
{jho&Ai
cataract, 88% (1417/1609) for eyes with prevalent cataract
,>eMG=C; g and 85% (211/249) for eyes with operated cataract (chisquared,
oNU0 qZ5 2 d.f. = 22.3), P < 0.001). Twenty-seven of the
I>[RqG operated eyes (11%) had visual acuities of less than 6/18
l#H#+*F (moderate vision impairment) (Fig. 2). A cause of this
LK, b
O| moderate visual impairment (but not the only cause) in four
.$%Soyr?, (15%) eyes was secondary to cataract surgery. Three of these
bLQ ^fH4ww four eyes had undergone intracapsular cataract extraction
7_mw%
|m6@ and the fourth eye had an opaque posterior capsule. No one
`(f!*Ru@/z had bilateral vision impairment as a result of their cataract
)d$glI+ surgery.
;M_o)OS3 DISCUSSION
B]Y}Hu To our knowledge, this is the first paper to systematically
H*Kj3NgY assess the prevalence of current cataract, previous cataract
Sz^5b! surgery, predictors of unoperated cataract and the outcomes
)YX 'N<[ of cataract surgery in a population-based sample. The Visual
&Ibu>di4[ Impairment Project is unique in that the sampling frame and
E2"q3_,, high response rate have ensured that the study population is
t7m>A-I representative of Australians aged 40 years and over. Therefore,
DWID$w these data can be used to plan age-related cataract
72X0Tq 4 services throughout Australia.
BVr0Gk We found the rate of any cataract in those over the age
+[R/=$ of 40 years to be 22%. Although relatively high, this rate is
2Ri{bWi significantly less than was reported in a number of previous
i%g#+Gw studies,2,4,6 with the exception of the Casteldaccia Eye
t: IN,Kl4 Study.5 However, it is difficult to compare rates of cataract
Q<KvBgmT between studies because of different methodologies and
)E,\H@A cataract definitions employed in the various studies, as well
>j'ZPwj^ as the different age structures of the study populations.
5Pd"h S Other studies have used less conservative definitions of
V\{tmDE cataract, thus leading to higher rates of cataract as defined.
,daKC In most large epidemiologic studies of cataract, visual acuity
KGWyJ has not been included in the definition of cataract.
o.'g]Q<}UB Therefore, the prevalence of cataract may not reflect the
g*F '[Z." actual need for cataract surgery in the community.
jWY$5Vq<H 80 McCarty et al.
S=nP[s Table 2. Prevalence of previous cataract by age, gender and cohort
9:!gI|C Age group Gender Urban Rural Nursing home Weighted total
:OkT? (i (years) (%) (%) (%)
v$7EvFS 40–49 Male 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.80 (0.00, 1.81)
Ai/b\:V9S Female 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (
ylB7* >[ 50–59 Male 0.68 0.58 0.00 0.65 (0.13, 1.17)
-CR?<A4mud Female 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.41 (0.00, 1.00)
2Y>~k{AN% 60–69 Male 2.12 7.59 0.00 3.80 (1.41, 6.19)
kdCP Female 2.11 3.51 0.00 2.54 (1.81, 3.26)
3 HIz9F( 70–79 Male 8.22 9.85 8.70 8.75 (6.38, 11.1)
oh
KCdT~ Female 7.21 7.86 7.02 7.41 (5.36, 9.46)
%rF?dvb;? 80–89 Male 25.0 30.0 14.3 26.2 (17.0, 35.4)
f_imyzP Female 27.9 25.6 18.3 26.7 (20.2, 33.3)
\/SQ,*O 90 + Male 0.00 16.7 66.7 9.19 (0.00, 21.5)
PI~1GyJr@; Female 58.3 100.0 26.9 63.1 (44.4, 81.8)
eh ,~F Age-standardized
(^5 7UmFv] (95% CL) Combined 3.31 (2.70, 3.93) 4.36 (2.67, 6.06) 2.26 (0.82, 3.70) 3.79 (2.97, 4.60)
sz9G3artK& Figure 2. Visual acuity in eyes that had undergone cataract
:KKa4=5L surgery, n = 249. h, Presenting; j, best-corrected.
#CnHf Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia 81
X!j{o The weighted prevalence of prior cataract surgery in the
rx5B=M Visual Impairment Project (3.6%) was similar to the crude
DEw8*MN rate in the Beaver Dam Eye Study4 (3.1%), but less than the
/% I7Vc crude rate in the Blue Mountains Eye Study6 (6.0%).
Y'u7 IX} However, the age-standardized rate in the Blue Mountains
eVR5Xar Eye Study (standardized to the age distribution of the urban
/Ux*u# Visual Impairment Project cohort) was found to be less than
AWjm~D-? the Visual Impairment Project (standardized rate = 1.36%,
"iM~Hy 95% CL 1.25, 1.47). The incidence of cataract surgery in
(Si=m;g Australia has exceeded population growth.1 This is due,
2qHf' perhaps, to advances in surgical techniques and lens
`$Y
P<CJeq implants that have changed the risk–benefit ratio.
?|1Mv1C? The Global Initiative for the Elimination of Avoidable
kwud?2E Blindness, sponsored by the World Health Organization,
G|m1.=DJm states that cataract surgical services should be provided that
@<@SMK) ‘have a high success rate in terms of visual outcome and
kJ
An4I.l improved quality of life’,17 although the ‘high success rate’ is
]O`
{dnP not defined. Population- and clinic-based studies conducted
8*SP~q in the United States have demonstrated marked improvement
EQe5JFR in visual acuity following cataract surgery.18–20 We
,zQOZ'^ found that 85% of eyes that had undergone cataract extraction
@f!AkzI had visual acuity of 6/12 or better. Previously, we have
#n shown that participants with prevalent cataract in this
P(
SZ68 cohort are more likely to express dissatisfaction with their
O3N_\B: current vision than participants without cataract or participants
3p*-tBOO with prior cataract surgery.21 In a national study in the
7yt=]1 United States, researchers found that the change in patients’
D\~e&0* ratings of their vision difficulties and satisfaction with their
)B!d,
HKt; vision after cataract surgery were more highly related to
qUo-Dq> their change in visual functioning score than to their change
e9^2,:wLB in visual acuity.19 Furthermore, improvement in visual function
kzq29S has been shown to be associated with improvement in
.9|uQEL overall quality of life.22
#*c F8NV- A recent review found that the incidence of visually
p{=QGrxB* significant posterior capsule opacification following
[<wbbvXR cataract surgery to be greater than 25%.23 We found 36%
X['2b78k capsulotomy in our population and that this was associated
[ut#:1h^ with visual acuity similar to that of eyes with a clear
[rreFSy#@ capsule, but significantly better than that of eyes with an
vtMJ@!MN; opaque capsule.
@("}]/O
V: A number of studies have shown that the demand and
-qe bQv timing of cataract surgery vary according to visual acuity,
z}.D"
P+ degree of handicap and socioeconomic factors.8–10,24,25 We
1Qh`6Ya f have also shown previously that ophthalmologists are more
A CV ek likely to refer a patient for cataract surgery if the patient is
-U>7
H`5 employed and less likely to refer a nursing home resident.7
{6x PdUhw In the Visual Impairment Project, we did not find that any
^GYq#q9Q particular subgroup of the population was at greater risk of
u8OxD having unoperated cataract. Universal access to health care
+
#]|)VZ in Australia may explain the fact that people without
}r2[!gGd%| Medicare are more likely to delay cataract operations in the
PM4>Th
Q USA,8 but not having private health insurance is not associated
135vZ:S with unoperated cataract in Australia.
g]`bnZ7 In summary, cataract is a significant public health problem
b4 hIeBI\ in that one in four people in their 80s will have had cataract
=p&sl;PsLw surgery. The importance of age-related cataract surgery will
1.SkIu% increase further with the ageing of the population: the
CtT~0Y| number of people over age 60 years is expected to double in
K!b8= K` the next 20 years. Cataract surgery services are well
64D%_8#m accessed by the Victorian population and the visual outcomes
^t78jfl of cataract surgery have been shown to be very good.
"E>t,
D These data can be used to plan for age-related cataract
|5xz l surgical services in Australia in the future as the need for
$o^e:Y,
a cataract extractions increases.
8Z:Ezg3^ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
3 C"_$?y" The Visual Impairment Project was funded in part by grants
Yg6If7& from the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, the
+8UdvMN National Health and Medical Research Council, the Ansell
\$;~74} Ophthalmology Foundation, the Dorothy Edols Estate and
Lh 9S8EU the Jack Brockhoff Foundation. Dr McCarty is the recipient
8X~h?^Vz of a Wagstaff Fellowship in Ophthalmology from the Royal
y`b\;kd Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital.
?`A9(#ySM REFERENCES
y~p4">] 1. Keeffe JE, Taylor HR. Cataract surgery in Australia 1985–94.
+a]j[# Aust. N.Z. J. Ophthalmol. 1996; 24: 313–17.
GEtbs+ [ 2. Sperduto RD, Hiller R. The prevalence of nuclear, cortical,
v[D&L_
and posterior subcapsular lens opacities in a general population
XOxB
(0@ sample. Ophthalmology 1984; 91: 815–18.
dwp:iM 3. Maraini G, Pasquini P, Sperduto RD et al. Distribution of lens
B+Q+0tw*i opacities in the Italian-American case–control study of agerelated
hwDXm9 cataract. Ophthalmology 1990; 97: 752–6.
jvO3_Zt9 4. Klein BEK, Klein R, Linton KLP. Prevalence of age-related
QSmJ`Bm lens opacities in a population. The Beaver Dam Eye Study.
"=ElCaP} Ophthalmology 1992; 99: 546–52.
\ 522,n` 5. Guiffrè G, Giammanco R, Di Pace F, Ponte F. Casteldaccia eye
ss;
5C:*y study: prevalence of cataract in the adult and elderly population
sVcdj|j of a Mediterranean town. Int. Ophthalmol. 1995; 18:
M,JA;a, _ 363–71.
/=trj5h 6. Mitchell P, Cumming RG, Attebo K, Panchapakesan J.
XSl!T/d Prevalence of cataract in Australia. The Blue Mountains Eye
3q CHh Study. Ophthalmology 1997; 104: 581–8.
~B*~'I9b* 7. Keeffe JE, McCarty CA, Chang WP, Steinberg EP, Taylor HR.
g 9|qbKQ:[ Relative importance of VA, patient concern and patient
!Y|8z\Q lifestyle on referral for cataract surgery. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis.
p6[#f96^u Sci. 1996; 37: S183.
(s Jq;Z 8. Curbow B, Legro MW, Brenner MH. The influence of patientrelated
Ym:
{Mm=ud variables in the timing of cataract extraction. Am. J.
\2Xx%SX Ophthalmol. 1993; 115: 614–22.
08O7F 9. Sletteberg OH, Høvding G, Bertelsen T. Do we operate too
4$F:NW,v:) many cataracts? The referred cataract patients’ own appraisal
:4iU^6 of their need for surgery. Acta Ophthalmol. Scand. 1995; 73:
E+Im~=m$ 77–80.
iz$FcA] 10. Escarce JJ. Would eliminating differences in physician practice
t5n2eOy~T style reduce geographic variations in cataract surgery rates?
}<.7 xz|V Med. Care 1993; 31: 1106–18.
^ePs
Il1E 11. Livingston PM, Carson CA, Stanislavsky YL, Lee SE, Guest
/_HwifRQ CS, Taylor HR. Methods for a population-based study of eye
}ymc5- disease: the Melbourne Visual Impairment Project. Ophthalmic
joY1(Y Epidemiol. 1994; 1: 139–48.
fPOEVmj< 12. Taylor HR, West SK. A simple system for the clinical grading
A<2I! of lens opacities. Lens Res. 1988; 5: 175–81.
hc6.#~i 82 McCarty et al.
^J0zXe -d 13. Cochran WG. Sampling Techniques. New York: John Wiley &
&7fY_~ )B Sons, 1977; 249–73.
:cEd [Jm9 14. Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical Methods in Cancer Research. Volume
|GuKU! II – the Design and Analysis of Cohort Studies. Lyon: International
C(xqvK~p Agency for Research on Cancer; 1987; 52–61.
db<q-u 15. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 1996 Census of Population and
_IC,9bbg Housing. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1997.
jT{f<P0 16. Livingston PM, Lee SE, McCarty CA, Taylor HR. A comparison
32s5-.{c/f of participants with non-participants in a populationbased
}Z"28? epidemiologic study: the Melbourne Visual Impairment
Fgsk
b"k/ Project. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 1997; 4: 73–82.
Xm%iPrl D 17. Programme for the Prevention of Blindness. Global Initiative for the
V;H
d)v(j Elimination of Avoidable Blindness. Geneva: World Health
l_bL,-|E8 Organization, 1997.
+g)_4fV0| 18. Applegate WB, Miller ST, Elam JT, Freeman JM, Wood TO,
#NWZ k.S Gettlefinger TC. Impact of cataract surgery with lens implantation
ZGA)r0]
P` on vision and physical function in elderly patients.
_
yiRh: JAMA 1987; 257: 1064–6.
C:rRK* 19. Steinberg EP, Tielsch JM, Schein OD et al. National Study of
n?zbUA# Cataract Surgery Outcomes. Variation in 4-month postoperative
3fm;r5 outcomes as reflected in multiple outcome measures.
-l\~p4U Ophthalmology 1994; 101:1131–41.
dFdlB`L 20. Klein BEK, Klein R, Moss SE. Change in visual acuity associated
'$n:CNha with cataract surgery. The Beaver Dam Eye Study.
j?Cr31 Ophthalmology 1996; 103: 1727–31.
g8LT7 21. McCarty CA, Keeffe JE, Taylor HR. The need for cataract
5ze`IY surgery: projections based on lens opacity, visual acuity, and
!'Pk
jP personal concern. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1999; 83: 62–5.
;RNM 22. Brenner MH, Curbow B, Javitt JC, Legro MW, Sommer A.
V xp$#3 ;S Vision change and quality of life in the elderly. Response to
<sgZ3*,A cataract surgery and treatment of other ocular conditions.
UN-T^ Arch. Ophthalmol. 1993; 111: 680–5.
dNOX&$/= 23. Schaumberg DA, Dana MR, Christen WG, Glynn RJ. A
N8,EI^W8Z systematic overview of the incidence of posterior capsule
x1 .3W j opacification. Ophthalmology 1998; 105: 1213–21.
}l,T~Pjb 24. Mordue A, Parkin DW, Baxter C, Fawcett G, Stewart M.
Tg3:VD Thresholds for treatment in cataract surgery. J. Public Health
&sI,8X2a2 Med. 1994; 16: 393–8.
l5{(z;xM 25. Norregaard JC, Bernth-Peterson P, Alonso J et al. Variations in
f%bc64N( indications for cataract surgery in the United States, Denmark,
H @_eFlT t Canada, and Spain: results from the International Cataract
^t\kLU Surgery Outcomes Study. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1998; 82: 1107–11.