ABSTRACT
l=5(5
\ Purpose: To quantify the prevalence of cataract, the outcomes
%3'4Qmp
R of cataract surgery and the factors related to
Q3#-q>;7 unoperated cataract in Australia.
/%Bc*k=ox
Methods: Participants were recruited from the Visual
%R5APMg1 Impairment Project: a cluster, stratified sample of more than
(LPMEQhI: 5000 Victorians aged 40 years and over. At examination
SU"-%}~O#, sites interviews, clinical examinations and lens photography
lhTjG,U= were performed. Cataract was defined in participants who
FG7}MUu had: had previous cataract surgery, cortical cataract greater
gZgb-$b than 4/16, nuclear greater than Wilmer standard 2, or
2%N$Y] posterior subcapsular greater than 1 mm2.
q{ov62t` Results: The participant group comprised 3271 Melbourne
s)"C~w^ residents, 403 Melbourne nursing home residents and 1473
s
z/7cLo rural residents.The weighted rate of any cataract in Victoria
xA]CtB*o7 was 21.5%. The overall weighted rate of prior cataract
JxI}#iA surgery was 3.79%. Two hundred and forty-nine eyes had
OA2<jrGB! had prior cataract surgery. Of these 249 procedures, 49
AJSe +1 (20%) were aphakic, 6 (2.4%) had anterior chamber
[AQ6ads) intraocular lenses and 194 (78%) had posterior chamber
R-J\c+C>W intraocular lenses.Two hundred and eleven of these operated
Mjq1qEi"B eyes (85%) had best-corrected visual acuity of 6/12 or
!v^D}P 3Y better, the legal requirement for a driver’s license.Twentyseven
}% JLwN (11%) had visual acuity of less than 6/18 (moderate
O>xGH0H vision impairment). Complications of cataract surgery
E\#hcvP caused reduced vision in four of the 27 eyes (15%), or 1.9%
bCg
{z b# of operated eyes. Three of these four eyes had undergone
Gvv~P3Dm intracapsular cataract extraction and the fourth eye had an
Rj9z'?a9 opaque posterior capsule. No one had bilateral vision
p*F&G=ZE impairment as a result of cataract surgery. Surprisingly, no
33| >u+ particular demographic factors (such as age, gender, rural
%TdZ_ residence, occupation, employment status, health insurance
`w6\II)aB status, ethnicity) were related to the presence of unoperated
oAe]/ j$ cataract.
UA/Q3) Conclusions: Although the overall prevalence of cataract is
:y%%Vx~ quite high, no particular subgroup is systematically underserviced
LYNd^} in terms of cataract surgery. Overall, the results of
!Sfy'v. cataract surgery are very good, with the majority of eyes
Z; Xg5 achieving driving vision following cataract extraction.
_Xd,aLoo Key words: cataract extraction, health planning, health
IBb3A services accessibility, prevalence
4.7OX&L'G INTRODUCTION
Zalgg/. Cataract is the leading cause of blindness worldwide and, in
9r@r\- Australia, cataract extractions account for the majority of all
sXOGI
v ophthalmic procedures.1 Over the period 1985–94, the rate
T j9;". of cataract surgery in Australia was twice as high as would be
16)@<7b]J expected from the growth in the elderly population.1
1.!rq,+>1 Although there have been a number of studies reporting
Cq;t;qN,nQ the prevalence of cataract in various populations,2–6 there is
XWZ
*{/u little information about determinants of cataract surgery in
ym:^Y-^iV the population. A previous survey of Australian ophthalmologists
DtG><g}[] showed that patient concern and lifestyle, rather
xz[a3In+ than visual acuity itself, are the primary factors for referral
q
3JoU/Sf for cataract surgery.7 This supports prior research which has
QgO@oV* S shown that visual acuity is not a strong predictor of need for
x:b0G cataract surgery.8,9 Elsewhere, socioeconomic status has
UOSa`TZbZ been shown to be related to cataract surgery rates.10
)VQ:L:1t( To appropriately plan health care services, information is
;!DUN zl needed about the prevalence of age-related cataract in the
KG6ki_ community as well as the factors associated with cataract
T5.1q
r L surgery. The purpose of this study is to quantify the prevalence
KL,=Z&.<= of any cataract in Australia, to describe the factors
[5,aBf)X related to unoperated cataract in the community and to
<iunDL0
describe the visual outcomes of cataract surgery.
BusD}9QqB METHODS
;X-~C.7k Study population
?Q[uIQ?dV Details about the study methodology for the Visual
^'!]|^ Impairment Project have been published previously.11
zvYkWaa_Qz Briefly, cluster sampling within three strata was employed to
)a.Y$![ recruit subjects aged 40 years and over to participate.
=:n>yZ3T Within the Melbourne Statistical Division, nine pairs of
TKj8a(R_ census collector districts were randomly selected. Fourteen
~4y&]:I nursing homes within a 5 km radius of these nine test sites
*T$o"*} were randomly chosen to recruit nursing home residents.
z(d@!Cd Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology (2000) 28, 77–82
=`[08 Original Article
v Ic0V Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia
f9u ^/QVS& Catherine A McCarty PhD, MPH, Mukesh B Nanjan PhD, Hugh R Taylor MD
35B G&;C Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Q(
.d!CQ> n Correspondence: Dr Cathy McCarty MPH, Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, 32 Gisborne Street, East Melbourne,
1OK,r` Victoria 3002, Australia. Email:
cathy@cera.unimelb.edu.au Ks.m5R 78 McCarty et al.
^
}Rqe Finally, four pairs of census collector districts in four rural
MO&QR-OY Victorian communities were randomly selected to recruit rural
0H,1"~,w] residents. A household census was conducted to identify
3?SofPtc/ eligible residents aged 40 years and over who had been a
u[9i>7}9 resident at that address for at least 6 months. At the time of
p s=jGh[ the household census, basic information about age, sex,
l|z
'Lwwm5 country of birth, language spoken at home, education, use of
&M(=#pq9 corrective spectacles and use of eye care services was collected.
9~98v;Z1 Eligible residents were then invited to attend a local
OY7\*wc: examination site for a more detailed interview and examination.
gQ4Q
h; The study protocol was approved by the Royal Victorian
s `fIeP Eye and Ear Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee.
|#8u:rguy Assessment of cataract
\PU3{_G] A standardized ophthalmic examination was performed after
6wC|/J^ pupil dilatation with one drop of 10% phenylephrine
oVutHt hydrochloride. Lens opacities were graded clinically at the
O4@sN=o time of the examination and subsequently from photos using
im{'PgiR the Wilmer cataract photo-grading system.12 Cortical and
jV
Yt=j*"V posterior subcapsular (PSC) opacities were assessed on
E6a$c`H@? retroillumination and measured as the proportion (in 1/16)
XzI c<81Z of pupil circumference occupied by opacity. For this analysis,
%Z~,F? cortical cataract was defined as 4/16 or greater opacity,
Xr\|U89P PSC cataract was defined as opacity equal to or greater than
le*mr0a 1 mm2 and nuclear cataract was defined as opacity equal to
@/h_v#
W or greater than Wilmer standard 2,12 independent of visual
V&`\ s5Q acuity. Examples of the minimum opacities defined as cortical,
C{>@b:]p nuclear and PSC cataract are presented in Figure 1.
7NC
"}JB& Bilateral congenital cataracts or cataracts secondary to
y;A<R[|Ve intraocular inflammation or trauma were excluded from the
YSwAu,$jf analysis. Two cases of bilateral secondary cataract and eight
p48M7OV cases of bilateral congenital cataract were excluded from the
[.4R ,[U analyses.
!GI*R2<W A Topcon® SL5 photo slit-lamp (Topcon America Corp.,
*O-1zIlp Paramus, NJ, USA) with a 0.1 mm slit beam of 9.0 mm in
qS<a5 `EA height set to an incident angle of 30° was used for examinations.
N:'v^0 Ektachrome® 200 ASA colour slide film (Eastman
WccTR
aq Kodak Company, Rochester, NY, USA) was used to photograph
z-fP#. the nuclear opacities. The cortical opacities were
dr0<K[S_ photographed with an Oxford® retroillumination camera
t"M&Yy (Marcher Enterprises Ltd, Hereford, UK) and T-MAX® 400
~_ss[\N film (Eastman Kodak). Photographs were graded separately
: l>&5w; by two research assistants and discrepancies were adjudicated
`|K30hRp: by an independent reviewer. Any discrepancies
q<(yNqMKP between the clinical grades and the photograph grades were
{<0=y#@u resolved. Except in cases where photographs were missing,
!4-B
xeNY\ the photograph grades were used in the analyses. Photograph
t mAj grades were available for 4301 (84%) for cortical
am,UUJ+h> cataract, 4147 (81%) for nuclear cataract and 4303 (84%)
L,#ij!txS for PSC cataract. Cataract status was classified according to
A41*4!L= the severity of the opacity in the worse eye.
$YuVM Assessment of risk factors
'>dsROB-> A standardized questionnaire was used to obtain information
iu!j#VO about education, employment and ethnic background.11
gN#&Ag<? Specific information was elicited on the occurrence, duration
*Pj[r and treatment of a number of medical conditions,
?K,xxH including ocular trauma, arthritis, diabetes, gout, hypertension
0>hV?A and mental illness. Information about the use, dose and
uk%C:4T duration of tobacco, alcohol, analgesics and steriods were
[ ySO collected, and a food frequency questionnaire was used to
mlC_E)Ed5 determine current consumption of dietary sources of antioxidants
( iM*Y"Y and use of vitamin supplements.
ioxsx>e< Data management and statistical analysis
p)l >bC?3 Data were collected either by direct computer entry with a
bxX[$
q questionnaire programmed in Paradox© (Carel Corporation,
H9nVtS{x Ottawa, Canada) with internal consistency checks, or
s5{N+O)~S on self-coding forms. Open-ended responses were coded at
2<&lrsh a later time. Data that were entered on the self-coded forms
u&MlWKCi were entered into a computer with double data entry and
lq0@)'D reconciliation of any inconsistencies. Data range and consistency
u l[ edp_ checks were performed on the entire data set.
Vs@[=" SAS© version 6.1 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina) was
&t.9^;( employed for statistical analyses.
J9s4lsea Ninety-five per cent confidence limits around the agespecific
f-6hcd@Ca rates were calculated according to Cochran13 to
nNuv 0 account for the effect of the cluster sampling. Ninety-five
-h=K]Y{` per cent confidence limits around age-standardized rates
[k~V77w
14 were calculated according to Breslow and Day.14 The strataspecific
MExP'9 data were weighted according to the 1996
piq1cV Australian Bureau of Statistics census data15 to reflect the
#1-y[w/ cataract prevalence in the entire Victorian population.
PF$K> d Univariate analyses with Student’s t-tests and chi-squared
Nb.AsIR^ tests were first employed to evaluate risk factors for unoperated
lwS6"2q cataract. Any factors with P < 0.10 were then fitted
w74)kIi into a backwards stepwise logistic regression model. For the
a.P7O!2Lp Figure 1. Minimum levels of cortical (a), nuclear (b), and posterior subcapsular (c) cataract.
)b<-=VR final multivariate models, P < 0.05 was considered statistically
MUo}Qi0K significant. Design effect was assessed through the use
e[txJ*SuO of cluster-specific models and multivariate models. The
8m? 9?OV5 design effect was assumed to be additive and an adjustment
QWt?` h= made in the variance by adding the variance associated with
pqaQ% |< the design effect prior to constructing the 95% confidence
{(mT,}`4 limits.
hoy+J/
RESULTS
R"Ol'y{ Study population
wps`2`z A total of 3271 (83%) of the Melbourne residents, 403
i <KWFF
# (90%) Melbourne nursing home residents, and 1473 (92%)
FD?!bI4 rural residents participated. In general, non-participants did
p-]vf$u not differ from participants.16 The study population was
3+6s}u) representative of the Victorian population and Australia as
eow6{CD8 a whole.
!<!5;f8 The Melbourne residents ranged in age from 40 to
b21c} rI3 98 years (mean = 59) and 1511 (46%) were male. The
9qIdwDRY Melbourne nursing home residents ranged in age from 46 to
<DG=qP6O 101 years (mean = 82) and 85 (21%) were men. The rural
Rv9oK-S residents ranged in age from 40 to 103 years (mean = 60)
V!!E)I and 701 (47.5%) were men.
p|mt2oDjw Prevalence of cataract and prior cataract surgery
uyr56 As would be expected, the rate of any cataract increases
)6?(K"T dramatically with age (Table 1). The weighted rate of any
an+`>}]F cataract in Victoria was 21.5% (95% CL 18.1, 24.9).
rCGyr}(NC Although the rates varied somewhat between the three
@^47Qgj8U strata, they were not significantly different as the 95% confidence
8v&4eU'S limits overlapped. The per cent of cataractous eyes
V=!tZ[4z$h with best-corrected visual acuity of less than 6/12 was 12.5%
#KA,=J (65/520) for cortical cataract, 18% for nuclear cataract
Y8I*B=7 (97/534) and 14.4% (27/187) for PSC cataract. Cataract
[a~|{~?8 surgery also rose dramatically with age. The overall
${"+bWG2G! weighted rate of prior cataract surgery in Victoria was
h-B&m:gD_U 3.79% (95% CL 2.97, 4.60) (Table 2).
+bwSu)k Risk factors for unoperated cataract
OhT?W[4 Cases of cataract that had not been removed were classified
s;-(dQ{O as unoperated cataract. Risk factor analyses for unoperated
2BA'Zu` cataract were not performed with the nursing home residents
NFT&\6!o as information about risk factor exposure was not
_~ m@ SI available for this cohort. The following factors were assessed
o"F=3b~:n in relation to unoperated cataract: age, sex, residence
c]]OV7;)> (urban/rural), language spoken at home (a measure of ethnic
wfH#E2+pk integration), country of birth, parents’ country of birth (a
]qZs^kQ measure of ethnicity), years since migration, education, use
-3
.Sr|t of ophthalmic services, use of optometric services, private
T%kr&XsQX health insurance status, duration of distance glasses use,
(UWV#AR glaucoma, age-related maculopathy and employment status.
HIUB: In this cross sectional study it was not possible to assess the
?[#nh@mI level of visual acuity that would predict a patient’s having
P !:LA
b( cataract surgery, as visual acuity data prior to cataract
Zo}O,;(F5 surgery were not available.
zTODV<-` The significant risk factors for unoperated cataract in univariate
=<ng
t
N analyses were related to: whether a participant had
fi*@m,- ever seen an optometrist, seen an ophthalmologist or been
j2A
Z.s diagnosed with glaucoma; and participants’ employment
`w@8i[2J status (currently employed) and age. These significant
&s.S)'l4l factors were placed in a backwards stepwise logistic regression
[=dK%7v model. The factors that remained significantly related
d
tHB@\1 to unoperated cataract were whether participants had ever
SJ(<u2J] seen an ophthalmologist, seen an optometrist and been
d~NvS-u7 diagnosed with glaucoma. None of the demographic factors
|KF_h^ were associated with unoperated cataract in the multivariate
"`l8*]z model.
DbRq,T The per cent of participants with unoperated cataract
.wj?}Fr?97 who said that they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with
L
\1&$|? Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia 79
`ceetr= Table 1. Prevalence of any cataracta (excluding previous cataract surgery) by age, gender and cohort
~4e4Gyx c Age group Sex Urban Rural Nursing home Weighted total
p:kHb@ (years) (%) (%) (%)
Tw^b!74gq 40–49 Male 2.56 4.04 0.00 3.00 (1.91, 4.08)
[T|_J$
; Female 2.61 1.70 0.00 2.36 (1.61, 3.10)
/_yJ;l/K 50–59 Male 7.69 6.94 0.00 7.47 (5.80, 9.15)
QtM9G@% Female 6.67 7.56 0.00 6.92 (5.60, 8.24)
'Z^-(xG,+ 60–69 Male 20.7 25.0 10.0 22.0 (18.1, 26.0)
qX,TX
3 Female 27.9 35.7 37.5 30.3 (26.0, 34.7)
.d
}7c! 70–79 Male 43.1 58.7 39.1 48.1 (41.2, 55.1)
Y
6B7qp Female 58.6 66.2 55.6 61.0 (56.0, 65.9)
m-%.LDqM 80–89 Male 74.0 89.3 92.0 79.3 (72.3, 86.3)
,OGXH2!h Female 91.9 97.0 80.2 92.6 (86.4, 98.8)
F^La\cZ*' 90 + Male 100.0 100.0 75.0 98.8 (96.2, 100.0)
CF|4, K) Female 100.0 100.0 93.8 98.6 (97.0, 100.0)
D`Tx,^E Age-standardized
S5a?KU (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)
CFo>D\*J aCortical > 4/16, nuclear > standard 2, posterior subcapsular > 1 mm2
jv<C#0E^ their current vision was 30% (290/683), compared with 27%
aaa6R|>0 (26/95) of participants with prior cataract surgery (chisquared,
B)^uGSW 1 d.f. = 0.25, P = 0.62).
}iOFB&)w Outcomes of cataract surgery
R]Iv?)Y Two hundred and forty-nine eyes had undergone prior
[\41 cataract surgery. Of these 249 operated eyes, 49 (20%) were
xna4W|- left aphakic, 6 (2.4%) had anterior chamber intraocular
/b
]Yya# lenses and 194 (78%) had posterior chamber intraocular
'f'zV@) lenses. The rate of capsulotomy in the eyes with intact
zG"*B_l}+ posterior capsules was 36% (73/202). Fifteen per cent of
RxeyMNd eyes (17/114) with a clear posterior capsule had bestcorrected
&@dMIJK"( visual acuity of less than 6/12 compared with 43%
"q<}#] u of eyes (6/14) with opaque capsules, and 15% of eyes
uaiCyh1: (11/73) with prior capsulotomies (chi-squared, 2 d.f. = 7.21,
o?T01t= P = 0.027).
|mHxkd The percentage of eyes with best-corrected visual acuity
*|OP>N of 6/12 or better was 96% (302/314) for eyes without
Zo12F**{ cataract, 88% (1417/1609) for eyes with prevalent cataract
..Dr?#Cr and 85% (211/249) for eyes with operated cataract (chisquared,
x{|`q9V~ N 2 d.f. = 22.3), P < 0.001). Twenty-seven of the
X{-@3tG<r operated eyes (11%) had visual acuities of less than 6/18
JsDugn ,B (moderate vision impairment) (Fig. 2). A cause of this
Gdi8Al]\Nl moderate visual impairment (but not the only cause) in four
IegZ
)&_n (15%) eyes was secondary to cataract surgery. Three of these
Q,AM<\S four eyes had undergone intracapsular cataract extraction
$$GmundqB and the fourth eye had an opaque posterior capsule. No one
EId_1F;V^ had bilateral vision impairment as a result of their cataract
VK
~ OL surgery.
@a[Y[FS DISCUSSION
d^.@~ To our knowledge, this is the first paper to systematically
Wwf],Ya assess the prevalence of current cataract, previous cataract
O=A(x m# surgery, predictors of unoperated cataract and the outcomes
^o|Gx of cataract surgery in a population-based sample. The Visual
gPA),
NrN Impairment Project is unique in that the sampling frame and
P p]Ygt'u high response rate have ensured that the study population is
=Y-ZI representative of Australians aged 40 years and over. Therefore,
/ }tMb these data can be used to plan age-related cataract
{,Py%.vvR services throughout Australia.
m:sT) We found the rate of any cataract in those over the age
ar!`8" of 40 years to be 22%. Although relatively high, this rate is
zHT22o56X significantly less than was reported in a number of previous
a2vZ' studies,2,4,6 with the exception of the Casteldaccia Eye
REaU=-m- Study.5 However, it is difficult to compare rates of cataract
HpQuro'Qh between studies because of different methodologies and
L6jD4ec8 cataract definitions employed in the various studies, as well
c-ud $0)c as the different age structures of the study populations.
p^yuz
( Other studies have used less conservative definitions of
VD).UdUn cataract, thus leading to higher rates of cataract as defined.
Kj+=?R~}S In most large epidemiologic studies of cataract, visual acuity
|oL}c!0vs has not been included in the definition of cataract.
;%/Kh :Vg Therefore, the prevalence of cataract may not reflect the
hh$V[/iK actual need for cataract surgery in the community.
C@$!'^ 61 80 McCarty et al.
l
JR Table 2. Prevalence of previous cataract by age, gender and cohort
|;[%ZE" Age group Gender Urban Rural Nursing home Weighted total
,{tK{XpS (years) (%) (%) (%)
o
U`J~6.&S 40–49 Male 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.80 (0.00, 1.81)
Oapv`Z\i~ Female 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (
~%8T_R /3 50–59 Male 0.68 0.58 0.00 0.65 (0.13, 1.17)
$^ wqoW%t Female 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.41 (0.00, 1.00)
&/}reE* 60–69 Male 2.12 7.59 0.00 3.80 (1.41, 6.19)
ZjEc\{ s Female 2.11 3.51 0.00 2.54 (1.81, 3.26)
YVpsf8R 70–79 Male 8.22 9.85 8.70 8.75 (6.38, 11.1)
`wzb}"gLsM Female 7.21 7.86 7.02 7.41 (5.36, 9.46)
Kpx(x0^2 80–89 Male 25.0 30.0 14.3 26.2 (17.0, 35.4)
)nI}K QJ< Female 27.9 25.6 18.3 26.7 (20.2, 33.3)
1%R8q=_ 90 + Male 0.00 16.7 66.7 9.19 (0.00, 21.5)
^V1iOf: Female 58.3 100.0 26.9 63.1 (44.4, 81.8)
=[7[F)I~O Age-standardized
LrL
Z
lJf (95% CL) Combined 3.31 (2.70, 3.93) 4.36 (2.67, 6.06) 2.26 (0.82, 3.70) 3.79 (2.97, 4.60)
?c$z?QTMJ Figure 2. Visual acuity in eyes that had undergone cataract
"Q>gQK
gL surgery, n = 249. h, Presenting; j, best-corrected.
)U?O4| \P Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia 81
_~=qByD
The weighted prevalence of prior cataract surgery in the
R[%ZyQ_ Visual Impairment Project (3.6%) was similar to the crude
^E)*i#."4 rate in the Beaver Dam Eye Study4 (3.1%), but less than the
9Ez>srH( crude rate in the Blue Mountains Eye Study6 (6.0%).
K] However, the age-standardized rate in the Blue Mountains
91Fx0( Eye Study (standardized to the age distribution of the urban
>l!#_a Visual Impairment Project cohort) was found to be less than
Zs$Qo->F the Visual Impairment Project (standardized rate = 1.36%,
C'_^DPzj 95% CL 1.25, 1.47). The incidence of cataract surgery in
323zR*\m Australia has exceeded population growth.1 This is due,
_~{Nco7T perhaps, to advances in surgical techniques and lens
CXe2G5 implants that have changed the risk–benefit ratio.
_gGI&0(VM The Global Initiative for the Elimination of Avoidable
vz[-8 m:f
Blindness, sponsored by the World Health Organization,
Xq"_^ states that cataract surgical services should be provided that
+i
@r-OL ‘have a high success rate in terms of visual outcome and
fW'@+<b improved quality of life’,17 although the ‘high success rate’ is
>R9_; not defined. Population- and clinic-based studies conducted
/F(wb_! in the United States have demonstrated marked improvement
|2YkZ nJn in visual acuity following cataract surgery.18–20 We
4GiHp7Y&A found that 85% of eyes that had undergone cataract extraction
em@bxyMm had visual acuity of 6/12 or better. Previously, we have
"<e<0:: shown that participants with prevalent cataract in this
+# 38 cohort are more likely to express dissatisfaction with their
':mw(` current vision than participants without cataract or participants
u(Y! _ with prior cataract surgery.21 In a national study in the
H(JgqbFB* United States, researchers found that the change in patients’
tiTJ.uz6 ratings of their vision difficulties and satisfaction with their
Nx%]dOa vision after cataract surgery were more highly related to
uA'S8b%C their change in visual functioning score than to their change
]d}h`!: in visual acuity.19 Furthermore, improvement in visual function
fku\O<1 has been shown to be associated with improvement in
Mdj?;'Yv overall quality of life.22
="k9
y A recent review found that the incidence of visually
\NiW(!Z} significant posterior capsule opacification following
4P>[]~S cataract surgery to be greater than 25%.23 We found 36%
:jJ;&t^^ capsulotomy in our population and that this was associated
TL29{'4V with visual acuity similar to that of eyes with a clear
\z~wm& capsule, but significantly better than that of eyes with an
^AI5SjOUx opaque capsule.
_F2R
x@Y A number of studies have shown that the demand and
4*)a3jI? timing of cataract surgery vary according to visual acuity,
0wh4sKm[X degree of handicap and socioeconomic factors.8–10,24,25 We
w ,6zbI/ have also shown previously that ophthalmologists are more
/K@_O\+;Q likely to refer a patient for cataract surgery if the patient is
CTNeh%K; employed and less likely to refer a nursing home resident.7
P,QI-, In the Visual Impairment Project, we did not find that any
kF1Tg KSd particular subgroup of the population was at greater risk of
DX*eN"z[ having unoperated cataract. Universal access to health care
Pl>BTo>p' in Australia may explain the fact that people without
_$Wj1h Medicare are more likely to delay cataract operations in the
SY[7<BUZ USA,8 but not having private health insurance is not associated
L/YEW7M with unoperated cataract in Australia.
(= T%eJ6
1 In summary, cataract is a significant public health problem
b_'VWd:am in that one in four people in their 80s will have had cataract
%u)niY-g surgery. The importance of age-related cataract surgery will
mmJ$+$JEk increase further with the ageing of the population: the
mh4<.6>5 number of people over age 60 years is expected to double in
6JCq?:#ab the next 20 years. Cataract surgery services are well
bg =<) s accessed by the Victorian population and the visual outcomes
k|r+/gIV of cataract surgery have been shown to be very good.
4P>4d + These data can be used to plan for age-related cataract
" iz'x-wy surgical services in Australia in the future as the need for
0-=PP@W cataract extractions increases.
fH>I/% ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
.?Pghqq. The Visual Impairment Project was funded in part by grants
B5pWSS from the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, the
Yp;6.\Z8[ National Health and Medical Research Council, the Ansell
<Rno
; Ophthalmology Foundation, the Dorothy Edols Estate and
8iIz!l%O the Jack Brockhoff Foundation. Dr McCarty is the recipient
4D4Y.g_x of a Wagstaff Fellowship in Ophthalmology from the Royal
T2%{pcdV/ Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital.
_
Cu," REFERENCES
v5/2-<6x 1. Keeffe JE, Taylor HR. Cataract surgery in Australia 1985–94.
l)d(N7HME Aust. N.Z. J. Ophthalmol. 1996; 24: 313–17.
#% 1|$V*: 2. Sperduto RD, Hiller R. The prevalence of nuclear, cortical,
yf/c and posterior subcapsular lens opacities in a general population
jW<aAd sample. Ophthalmology 1984; 91: 815–18.
FZi'#(y 3. Maraini G, Pasquini P, Sperduto RD et al. Distribution of lens
z^YL$ opacities in the Italian-American case–control study of agerelated
mi>CHa+$ cataract. Ophthalmology 1990; 97: 752–6.
(UGmbRf& 4. Klein BEK, Klein R, Linton KLP. Prevalence of age-related
jWX^h^n7K lens opacities in a population. The Beaver Dam Eye Study.
Nm;V9*5 Ophthalmology 1992; 99: 546–52.
q]}1/JZS 5. Guiffrè G, Giammanco R, Di Pace F, Ponte F. Casteldaccia eye
~Bi{k'A9 study: prevalence of cataract in the adult and elderly population
NA<6s]Cs. of a Mediterranean town. Int. Ophthalmol. 1995; 18:
F VVpyB| 363–71.
@9}SHS
6. Mitchell P, Cumming RG, Attebo K, Panchapakesan J.
z"*$ . Prevalence of cataract in Australia. The Blue Mountains Eye
QN'v]z Study. Ophthalmology 1997; 104: 581–8.
g0&Rl 7. Keeffe JE, McCarty CA, Chang WP, Steinberg EP, Taylor HR.
n~e#Y<IP\1 Relative importance of VA, patient concern and patient
;A3aUN;"I lifestyle on referral for cataract surgery. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis.
=JK# "' Sci. 1996; 37: S183.
`JrvD 8. Curbow B, Legro MW, Brenner MH. The influence of patientrelated
M)T {6w variables in the timing of cataract extraction. Am. J.
/U1 jCLR' Ophthalmol. 1993; 115: 614–22.
h=`1sfz 9. Sletteberg OH, Høvding G, Bertelsen T. Do we operate too
d O' apey many cataracts? The referred cataract patients’ own appraisal
="Edt+a)t of their need for surgery. Acta Ophthalmol. Scand. 1995; 73:
1r-#QuV# 77–80.
A[mm_+
D> 10. Escarce JJ. Would eliminating differences in physician practice
/[|ODfY style reduce geographic variations in cataract surgery rates?
(9X>E+0E Med. Care 1993; 31: 1106–18.
GA.4'W^&a 11. Livingston PM, Carson CA, Stanislavsky YL, Lee SE, Guest
G"'[dL)N> CS, Taylor HR. Methods for a population-based study of eye
[L+VvO%cT disease: the Melbourne Visual Impairment Project. Ophthalmic
MGGc Epidemiol. 1994; 1: 139–48.
kpU-//lk+ 12. Taylor HR, West SK. A simple system for the clinical grading
z/IZ ;K_e of lens opacities. Lens Res. 1988; 5: 175–81.
wzka4J { 82 McCarty et al.
lbg^ 2|o~~ 13. Cochran WG. Sampling Techniques. New York: John Wiley &
*z{.9z` Sons, 1977; 249–73.
5csqu^/y 14. Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical Methods in Cancer Research. Volume
F~Z~OqCS II – the Design and Analysis of Cohort Studies. Lyon: International
WV8?zB1 Agency for Research on Cancer; 1987; 52–61.
bR*/d-v^ 15. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 1996 Census of Population and
EEJsNF Housing. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1997.
*Pmk1h2 16. Livingston PM, Lee SE, McCarty CA, Taylor HR. A comparison
E+.%9EKU of participants with non-participants in a populationbased
1 iWe&I: epidemiologic study: the Melbourne Visual Impairment
>[U.P)7; Project. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 1997; 4: 73–82.
:le"FFfk 17. Programme for the Prevention of Blindness. Global Initiative for the
)Fo1[:_B' Elimination of Avoidable Blindness. Geneva: World Health
=?, dX Organization, 1997.
c_3
3.i"I} 18. Applegate WB, Miller ST, Elam JT, Freeman JM, Wood TO,
'[6o(~* Gettlefinger TC. Impact of cataract surgery with lens implantation
q|[P[7z on vision and physical function in elderly patients.
_%`<V!RT\ JAMA 1987; 257: 1064–6.
&>Ko}?w 19. Steinberg EP, Tielsch JM, Schein OD et al. National Study of
nO d'$q Cataract Surgery Outcomes. Variation in 4-month postoperative
_c W(R,i outcomes as reflected in multiple outcome measures.
JmR)
g Ophthalmology 1994; 101:1131–41.
njk1x 20. Klein BEK, Klein R, Moss SE. Change in visual acuity associated
_Q:739& with cataract surgery. The Beaver Dam Eye Study.
77Fpb?0` Ophthalmology 1996; 103: 1727–31.
NB z3j 21. McCarty CA, Keeffe JE, Taylor HR. The need for cataract
?rD`'B surgery: projections based on lens opacity, visual acuity, and
G|p3NhLgO= personal concern. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1999; 83: 62–5.
?8d7/KZO 22. Brenner MH, Curbow B, Javitt JC, Legro MW, Sommer A.
~[mAv#d&i Vision change and quality of life in the elderly. Response to
1xJc[q cataract surgery and treatment of other ocular conditions.
U~mv1V^. Arch. Ophthalmol. 1993; 111: 680–5.
G2nL#l~@) 23. Schaumberg DA, Dana MR, Christen WG, Glynn RJ. A
^vPt Ppt systematic overview of the incidence of posterior capsule
f|*vWHSM opacification. Ophthalmology 1998; 105: 1213–21.
"\'g2|A 24. Mordue A, Parkin DW, Baxter C, Fawcett G, Stewart M.
t ._PS3 Thresholds for treatment in cataract surgery. J. Public Health
Zm:Wig
,a Med. 1994; 16: 393–8.
0RLyAC| 25. Norregaard JC, Bernth-Peterson P, Alonso J et al. Variations in
3q>6gaTv indications for cataract surgery in the United States, Denmark,
$Yr'`(Cbc Canada, and Spain: results from the International Cataract
+G !N@O Surgery Outcomes Study. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1998; 82: 1107–11.