加入VIP 上传考博资料 您的流量 增加流量 考博报班 每日签到
   
主题 : Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia
级别: 禁止发言
显示用户信息 
楼主  发表于: 2009-06-05   

Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia

ABSTRACT l;aO"_E1m  
Purpose: To quantify the prevalence of cataract, the outcomes &i`(y>\  
of cataract surgery and the factors related to ^ rO}'~(  
unoperated cataract in Australia. H#nJWe_9A  
Methods: Participants were recruited from the Visual G(F=6L~;  
Impairment Project: a cluster, stratified sample of more than M#8_Qbvfk  
5000 Victorians aged 40 years and over. At examination s{Y-Vdx  
sites interviews, clinical examinations and lens photography 6 Rg>h  
were performed. Cataract was defined in participants who _IxYnm`pc  
had: had previous cataract surgery, cortical cataract greater JV !F<  
than 4/16, nuclear greater than Wilmer standard 2, or 3_i29ghv  
posterior subcapsular greater than 1 mm2. D7B g!*  
Results: The participant group comprised 3271 Melbourne 4VsttT  
residents, 403 Melbourne nursing home residents and 1473 )7E7K%:b,  
rural residents.The weighted rate of any cataract in Victoria gKWUHlQY  
was 21.5%. The overall weighted rate of prior cataract 2G:KaQ)  
surgery was 3.79%. Two hundred and forty-nine eyes had K\lu;   
had prior cataract surgery. Of these 249 procedures, 49 {p(6bsn_#]  
(20%) were aphakic, 6 (2.4%) had anterior chamber [ 8WG  
intraocular lenses and 194 (78%) had posterior chamber 9:E.Iy  
intraocular lenses.Two hundred and eleven of these operated )g U#[}6H  
eyes (85%) had best-corrected visual acuity of 6/12 or 69odE+-X.  
better, the legal requirement for a driver’s license.Twentyseven y;.5AvfD  
(11%) had visual acuity of less than 6/18 (moderate b'`C<Rk  
vision impairment). Complications of cataract surgery o7v9xm+  
caused reduced vision in four of the 27 eyes (15%), or 1.9% $JK,9G[Vu  
of operated eyes. Three of these four eyes had undergone +ul.P)1J6  
intracapsular cataract extraction and the fourth eye had an g- INhzMu  
opaque posterior capsule. No one had bilateral vision 1n>AN.nI  
impairment as a result of cataract surgery. Surprisingly, no Qg o| \=  
particular demographic factors (such as age, gender, rural H]{`q  
residence, occupation, employment status, health insurance k/Ao?R=@gI  
status, ethnicity) were related to the presence of unoperated Y)AHM0;g  
cataract. 3X`N~_+  
Conclusions: Although the overall prevalence of cataract is S'IQbHz*  
quite high, no particular subgroup is systematically underserviced qFY>/fCP4  
in terms of cataract surgery. Overall, the results of Gs*X> D  
cataract surgery are very good, with the majority of eyes =u5( zaBe  
achieving driving vision following cataract extraction. O<?.iF%  
Key words: cataract extraction, health planning, health  +OO my  
services accessibility, prevalence vC^n_  
INTRODUCTION AnBD~h h  
Cataract is the leading cause of blindness worldwide and, in e{ZS"e`!  
Australia, cataract extractions account for the majority of all lygv#s-T  
ophthalmic procedures.1 Over the period 1985–94, the rate <;!#+|L/  
of cataract surgery in Australia was twice as high as would be ~8lB#NuN  
expected from the growth in the elderly population.1 % hRH80W|  
Although there have been a number of studies reporting .DhB4v&  
the prevalence of cataract in various populations,2–6 there is >#5jO9  
little information about determinants of cataract surgery in LH q~`  
the population. A previous survey of Australian ophthalmologists p2wDk^$  
showed that patient concern and lifestyle, rather sN/8OLc  
than visual acuity itself, are the primary factors for referral 6{[ uCxxl  
for cataract surgery.7 This supports prior research which has  ByjgM`  
shown that visual acuity is not a strong predictor of need for K'U=);W  
cataract surgery.8,9 Elsewhere, socioeconomic status has AK$i0Rn;pm  
been shown to be related to cataract surgery rates.10 z3|5E#m  
To appropriately plan health care services, information is )H*BTfmt  
needed about the prevalence of age-related cataract in the %Lfy!]Ru  
community as well as the factors associated with cataract 4{ED~w|  
surgery. The purpose of this study is to quantify the prevalence 2<uBC  
of any cataract in Australia, to describe the factors "'I |#dKoG  
related to unoperated cataract in the community and to cx*$GaMk  
describe the visual outcomes of cataract surgery. )JA^FQ5N  
METHODS 6oq/\D$6~  
Study population S 0mt8/ M  
Details about the study methodology for the Visual D'"l%p  
Impairment Project have been published previously.11 d PF*G$  
Briefly, cluster sampling within three strata was employed to #UqE %g`J  
recruit subjects aged 40 years and over to participate. $8NM[R.8^4  
Within the Melbourne Statistical Division, nine pairs of qGECw#  
census collector districts were randomly selected. Fourteen S1_):JvV  
nursing homes within a 5 km radius of these nine test sites xZ`h8  
were randomly chosen to recruit nursing home residents. 'M % uw85  
Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology (2000) 28, 77–82 NrfAr}v'E  
Original Article \|C~VU@  
Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia r<_qU3Eaj  
Catherine A McCarty PhD, MPH, Mukesh B Nanjan PhD, Hugh R Taylor MD !+3nlG4cw  
Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia _/h<4G6A  
n Correspondence: Dr Cathy McCarty MPH, Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, 32 Gisborne Street, East Melbourne, C&RZdh,$  
Victoria 3002, Australia. Email: cathy@cera.unimelb.edu.au CjmF2[|  
78 McCarty et al. 8>!-|VSn  
Finally, four pairs of census collector districts in four rural G5!!^p~  
Victorian communities were randomly selected to recruit rural j%fi*2uX  
residents. A household census was conducted to identify 3ZX#6*(}2  
eligible residents aged 40 years and over who had been a (Iv*sd *  
resident at that address for at least 6 months. At the time of {R5_=MG  
the household census, basic information about age, sex, dp*E#XCr1  
country of birth, language spoken at home, education, use of T&]IPOH9  
corrective spectacles and use of eye care services was collected. dIk9C|-.  
Eligible residents were then invited to attend a local D #C\| E:  
examination site for a more detailed interview and examination. 8l>YpS*S^  
The study protocol was approved by the Royal Victorian rh6 e  
Eye and Ear Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee. G-Zn-I  
Assessment of cataract |pR'#M4j4A  
A standardized ophthalmic examination was performed after Ny]]L  
pupil dilatation with one drop of 10% phenylephrine DfVSG1g  
hydrochloride. Lens opacities were graded clinically at the :qtg`zM/4  
time of the examination and subsequently from photos using  K,Hxe;-  
the Wilmer cataract photo-grading system.12 Cortical and !1`f84d  
posterior subcapsular (PSC) opacities were assessed on j`_tb   
retroillumination and measured as the proportion (in 1/16) ,A>cL#Oe  
of pupil circumference occupied by opacity. For this analysis, /F}dC/W  
cortical cataract was defined as 4/16 or greater opacity, =+"-8tz8FV  
PSC cataract was defined as opacity equal to or greater than N`7+] T  
1 mm2 and nuclear cataract was defined as opacity equal to 3SI%>CO}  
or greater than Wilmer standard 2,12 independent of visual - *xn`DH  
acuity. Examples of the minimum opacities defined as cortical, Mqm9i  
nuclear and PSC cataract are presented in Figure 1. L^L.;1  
Bilateral congenital cataracts or cataracts secondary to 2Kw i4R  
intraocular inflammation or trauma were excluded from the uo7[T*<Q  
analysis. Two cases of bilateral secondary cataract and eight "_ON0._(/  
cases of bilateral congenital cataract were excluded from the >&)|fV&4  
analyses. k(_^Lq f-  
A Topcon® SL5 photo slit-lamp (Topcon America Corp., &}FWpo!  
Paramus, NJ, USA) with a 0.1 mm slit beam of 9.0 mm in CZ ,2Rq  
height set to an incident angle of 30° was used for examinations. ~oeX 0l>F  
Ektachrome® 200 ASA colour slide film (Eastman K#]FUUnj=  
Kodak Company, Rochester, NY, USA) was used to photograph U6~79Hnt  
the nuclear opacities. The cortical opacities were > ;~ia3  
photographed with an Oxford® retroillumination camera R5fZ }C7  
(Marcher Enterprises Ltd, Hereford, UK) and T-MAX® 400 0#/Pc`z C  
film (Eastman Kodak). Photographs were graded separately 7'R7J"sY`|  
by two research assistants and discrepancies were adjudicated _j|U>s   
by an independent reviewer. Any discrepancies '. #3h$d  
between the clinical grades and the photograph grades were MG74,D.f  
resolved. Except in cases where photographs were missing, -p f9Wk  
the photograph grades were used in the analyses. Photograph iG=XRctgj)  
grades were available for 4301 (84%) for cortical QVWUm!  
cataract, 4147 (81%) for nuclear cataract and 4303 (84%) i/F ].Sag  
for PSC cataract. Cataract status was classified according to 3s Mmg`  
the severity of the opacity in the worse eye. ~{[,0,lWU  
Assessment of risk factors BzI(  
A standardized questionnaire was used to obtain information : W0 ;U  
about education, employment and ethnic background.11 Io<L! =>  
Specific information was elicited on the occurrence, duration ' y_2"  
and treatment of a number of medical conditions, W";Po)YC  
including ocular trauma, arthritis, diabetes, gout, hypertension z A@w[.  
and mental illness. Information about the use, dose and N~9zQ  
duration of tobacco, alcohol, analgesics and steriods were G/V0Yn""  
collected, and a food frequency questionnaire was used to YG>6;g)Zm  
determine current consumption of dietary sources of antioxidants fl<j]{*v  
and use of vitamin supplements. z2OXCZ*/  
Data management and statistical analysis nLBi} T  
Data were collected either by direct computer entry with a ~}s0~j~  
questionnaire programmed in Paradox© (Carel Corporation, N#7_)S[@0l  
Ottawa, Canada) with internal consistency checks, or \-I)dMm[  
on self-coding forms. Open-ended responses were coded at A]m_&A#  
a later time. Data that were entered on the self-coded forms ph@2[rUp  
were entered into a computer with double data entry and GlaZZ,   
reconciliation of any inconsistencies. Data range and consistency ()yOK$"  
checks were performed on the entire data set. /5C>7BC  
SAS© version 6.1 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina) was Ct}rj-L<i  
employed for statistical analyses. *AA78G|  
Ninety-five per cent confidence limits around the agespecific 5 OF*PBZ  
rates were calculated according to Cochran13 to ]d,#PF  
account for the effect of the cluster sampling. Ninety-five =8x-+u5}rK  
per cent confidence limits around age-standardized rates 0coRar?+b  
were calculated according to Breslow and Day.14 The strataspecific mbZ g2TTy  
data were weighted according to the 1996 LQ4F/[1}  
Australian Bureau of Statistics census data15 to reflect the R|dSjEs  
cataract prevalence in the entire Victorian population. Xe\,:~  
Univariate analyses with Student’s t-tests and chi-squared {;?bC'  
tests were first employed to evaluate risk factors for unoperated 1Yy*G-7}  
cataract. Any factors with P < 0.10 were then fitted }t5pz[zl  
into a backwards stepwise logistic regression model. For the nokMS  
Figure 1. Minimum levels of cortical (a), nuclear (b), and posterior subcapsular (c) cataract. 0vdnM8N2  
final multivariate models, P < 0.05 was considered statistically j:'!P<#  
significant. Design effect was assessed through the use He)dm5#fg  
of cluster-specific models and multivariate models. The B,RHFlp{  
design effect was assumed to be additive and an adjustment QD*(wj  
made in the variance by adding the variance associated with *(]@T@yN  
the design effect prior to constructing the 95% confidence LQ=Fck~[r  
limits. kNTxYJ  
RESULTS T|lyjX$Q]9  
Study population h OF>Dj  
A total of 3271 (83%) of the Melbourne residents, 403 >rzpYc'~w  
(90%) Melbourne nursing home residents, and 1473 (92%) 1dX)l  
rural residents participated. In general, non-participants did #ui7YUR=2  
not differ from participants.16 The study population was { w:9w  
representative of the Victorian population and Australia as h5R5FzY0&  
a whole. @ei:/~y3  
The Melbourne residents ranged in age from 40 to .=-K7.X.)  
98 years (mean = 59) and 1511 (46%) were male. The L~xzfO  
Melbourne nursing home residents ranged in age from 46 to Og3bV_,"  
101 years (mean = 82) and 85 (21%) were men. The rural  <IL$8a  
residents ranged in age from 40 to 103 years (mean = 60) @ 6{U*vs  
and 701 (47.5%) were men. ij~023$DTt  
Prevalence of cataract and prior cataract surgery _"#ucM=B:-  
As would be expected, the rate of any cataract increases {BKr/) H  
dramatically with age (Table 1). The weighted rate of any gAgP("  
cataract in Victoria was 21.5% (95% CL 18.1, 24.9). 1u0 NG)*f  
Although the rates varied somewhat between the three +R?d6IjH  
strata, they were not significantly different as the 95% confidence ^atBf![  
limits overlapped. The per cent of cataractous eyes #.n%$r  
with best-corrected visual acuity of less than 6/12 was 12.5% Skd,=r  
(65/520) for cortical cataract, 18% for nuclear cataract y-c2tF@'v  
(97/534) and 14.4% (27/187) for PSC cataract. Cataract \aG:l.IM0  
surgery also rose dramatically with age. The overall N2^B  
weighted rate of prior cataract surgery in Victoria was g+98G8 R  
3.79% (95% CL 2.97, 4.60) (Table 2). 1RF? dv  
Risk factors for unoperated cataract ndIU0kq3  
Cases of cataract that had not been removed were classified I5J9,j  
as unoperated cataract. Risk factor analyses for unoperated Zu/}TS9bi  
cataract were not performed with the nursing home residents 4X &\/X  
as information about risk factor exposure was not Z{ A)  
available for this cohort. The following factors were assessed Lh5d2 }tcO  
in relation to unoperated cataract: age, sex, residence LGm>x  
(urban/rural), language spoken at home (a measure of ethnic Ysk,9MR(F  
integration), country of birth, parents’ country of birth (a 2$O @T]  
measure of ethnicity), years since migration, education, use /8SQmh$+e  
of ophthalmic services, use of optometric services, private p ft6 @ 'q  
health insurance status, duration of distance glasses use, 3S'j uHT e  
glaucoma, age-related maculopathy and employment status. |&t 2jD(  
In this cross sectional study it was not possible to assess the 0/."R ;  
level of visual acuity that would predict a patient’s having 8@|rB3J  
cataract surgery, as visual acuity data prior to cataract R;_U BQ)  
surgery were not available. t1)b26;  
The significant risk factors for unoperated cataract in univariate q1Si*?2W  
analyses were related to: whether a participant had P/'~&*m-  
ever seen an optometrist, seen an ophthalmologist or been /QsFeH  
diagnosed with glaucoma; and participants’ employment wr=h=vXU[  
status (currently employed) and age. These significant %7PprN0>  
factors were placed in a backwards stepwise logistic regression _ G!lQ)1  
model. The factors that remained significantly related ~R]E=/m|  
to unoperated cataract were whether participants had ever V6,D ~7  
seen an ophthalmologist, seen an optometrist and been 9K@>{69WQ  
diagnosed with glaucoma. None of the demographic factors d]OoJK9&&  
were associated with unoperated cataract in the multivariate IPU'M*|Q  
model. W%f:+s}cI  
The per cent of participants with unoperated cataract C^S?W=1=w  
who said that they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with %6}S'yL  
Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia 79 *Rv eR?kO  
Table 1. Prevalence of any cataracta (excluding previous cataract surgery) by age, gender and cohort hv'~S  
Age group Sex Urban Rural Nursing home Weighted total \#[W8k<Z  
(years) (%) (%) (%) aXyu%<@k  
40–49 Male 2.56 4.04 0.00 3.00 (1.91, 4.08) *hAeA+:  
Female 2.61 1.70 0.00 2.36 (1.61, 3.10) ,epKt(vl  
50–59 Male 7.69 6.94 0.00 7.47 (5.80, 9.15) N 5rY*S  
Female 6.67 7.56 0.00 6.92 (5.60, 8.24) %Yg;s'F>#q  
60–69 Male 20.7 25.0 10.0 22.0 (18.1, 26.0) zYdSg<[^  
Female 27.9 35.7 37.5 30.3 (26.0, 34.7) ^CTgo,uf6H  
70–79 Male 43.1 58.7 39.1 48.1 (41.2, 55.1) X-! yi  
Female 58.6 66.2 55.6 61.0 (56.0, 65.9) V; 1r  
80–89 Male 74.0 89.3 92.0 79.3 (72.3, 86.3) PNXZ3:W  
Female 91.9 97.0 80.2 92.6 (86.4, 98.8) =iRi 9r'l  
90 + Male 100.0 100.0 75.0 98.8 (96.2, 100.0) ^>uzMR!q5  
Female 100.0 100.0 93.8 98.6 (97.0, 100.0) >U^AIaW  
Age-standardized YWeEvo(,=  
(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) g*ES[JJH&  
aCortical > 4/16, nuclear > standard 2, posterior subcapsular > 1 mm2 -Q;5A;sr2  
their current vision was 30% (290/683), compared with 27% Qp<?[C}'W  
(26/95) of participants with prior cataract surgery (chisquared, MQ2gzKw>  
1 d.f. = 0.25, P = 0.62). ^aDos9SyV  
Outcomes of cataract surgery  r_]wa  
Two hundred and forty-nine eyes had undergone prior XZuJ<]}X,  
cataract surgery. Of these 249 operated eyes, 49 (20%) were 673v   
left aphakic, 6 (2.4%) had anterior chamber intraocular JGSeu =)  
lenses and 194 (78%) had posterior chamber intraocular -:m;ePK  
lenses. The rate of capsulotomy in the eyes with intact knpb$eX4  
posterior capsules was 36% (73/202). Fifteen per cent of skdSK7 n  
eyes (17/114) with a clear posterior capsule had bestcorrected $}l0Nh'Eu  
visual acuity of less than 6/12 compared with 43% TclZdk]%T  
of eyes (6/14) with opaque capsules, and 15% of eyes *-Y77p7u  
(11/73) with prior capsulotomies (chi-squared, 2 d.f. = 7.21, ('W#r"  
P = 0.027). Jd&Qi)1  
The percentage of eyes with best-corrected visual acuity `?rPs8+R  
of 6/12 or better was 96% (302/314) for eyes without >Fz_] z   
cataract, 88% (1417/1609) for eyes with prevalent cataract B8Jev\_  
and 85% (211/249) for eyes with operated cataract (chisquared, G=!Y~qg  
2 d.f. = 22.3), P < 0.001). Twenty-seven of the )qD%5} t  
operated eyes (11%) had visual acuities of less than 6/18 ;7 i 0ko9  
(moderate vision impairment) (Fig. 2). A cause of this q+dY&4&u  
moderate visual impairment (but not the only cause) in four *FR Eh@R  
(15%) eyes was secondary to cataract surgery. Three of these )& %X AW{  
four eyes had undergone intracapsular cataract extraction x+nrdW+  
and the fourth eye had an opaque posterior capsule. No one FM0)/6I'x  
had bilateral vision impairment as a result of their cataract iYHD:cg)~  
surgery. `f*?|)  
DISCUSSION k  5xzC&  
To our knowledge, this is the first paper to systematically -'&MT :L  
assess the prevalence of current cataract, previous cataract : r:5a(sq  
surgery, predictors of unoperated cataract and the outcomes -&M9Yg|Se  
of cataract surgery in a population-based sample. The Visual L/<^uO1  
Impairment Project is unique in that the sampling frame and x<P$$G/  
high response rate have ensured that the study population is er,R}v  
representative of Australians aged 40 years and over. Therefore, zbx,qctYo$  
these data can be used to plan age-related cataract Ngu +V  
services throughout Australia. 7}%3Aw6]S  
We found the rate of any cataract in those over the age p<`q^D  
of 40 years to be 22%. Although relatively high, this rate is hqFK2 lR  
significantly less than was reported in a number of previous '+Gt+Gq+  
studies,2,4,6 with the exception of the Casteldaccia Eye $oH?oD1  
Study.5 However, it is difficult to compare rates of cataract NV9D;g$Y  
between studies because of different methodologies and I^[R]Js  
cataract definitions employed in the various studies, as well /+"BU-aQk  
as the different age structures of the study populations. w1rB"rB?  
Other studies have used less conservative definitions of 4.|]R8Mn  
cataract, thus leading to higher rates of cataract as defined. ,@/b7BVv  
In most large epidemiologic studies of cataract, visual acuity u#\=g:  
has not been included in the definition of cataract. nDkyo>t .  
Therefore, the prevalence of cataract may not reflect the bb$1RLyRL  
actual need for cataract surgery in the community. a_L&*%;  
80 McCarty et al. %^p1ax  
Table 2. Prevalence of previous cataract by age, gender and cohort jL I(Z  
Age group Gender Urban Rural Nursing home Weighted total vy,ER<  
(years) (%) (%) (%) Jq l#z/z  
40–49 Male 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.80 (0.00, 1.81) :tedtV ~  
Female 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ( { e<J} -/?  
50–59 Male 0.68 0.58 0.00 0.65 (0.13, 1.17) AGx]srl  
Female 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.41 (0.00, 1.00) E O52 E|  
60–69 Male 2.12 7.59 0.00 3.80 (1.41, 6.19) 3:PBVt=  
Female 2.11 3.51 0.00 2.54 (1.81, 3.26) ;jfjRcU  
70–79 Male 8.22 9.85 8.70 8.75 (6.38, 11.1) !Q*.Dw()[  
Female 7.21 7.86 7.02 7.41 (5.36, 9.46) KR^lmN  
80–89 Male 25.0 30.0 14.3 26.2 (17.0, 35.4) IwZn%>1N  
Female 27.9 25.6 18.3 26.7 (20.2, 33.3) ']ya_v~e  
90 + Male 0.00 16.7 66.7 9.19 (0.00, 21.5) #@;RJJZg  
Female 58.3 100.0 26.9 63.1 (44.4, 81.8) D}SRr,4v  
Age-standardized M+gQN}BAr  
(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) [`Ol&R4 k  
Figure 2. Visual acuity in eyes that had undergone cataract H\Y.l,^  
surgery, n = 249. h, Presenting; j, best-corrected. VSx[{yn  
Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia 81 L oe!@c  
The weighted prevalence of prior cataract surgery in the 1/j J;}  
Visual Impairment Project (3.6%) was similar to the crude ^cZF#%k  
rate in the Beaver Dam Eye Study4 (3.1%), but less than the B0?E$8a  
crude rate in the Blue Mountains Eye Study6 (6.0%). 8+k\0fmy  
However, the age-standardized rate in the Blue Mountains \;&j;"c,W  
Eye Study (standardized to the age distribution of the urban yc8iT`  
Visual Impairment Project cohort) was found to be less than <K=:_  
the Visual Impairment Project (standardized rate = 1.36%, '\(Us^Ug  
95% CL 1.25, 1.47). The incidence of cataract surgery in -N<s =  
Australia has exceeded population growth.1 This is due, 3Nd&*QSV  
perhaps, to advances in surgical techniques and lens R(74Px,/  
implants that have changed the risk–benefit ratio. :@y!5[88!  
The Global Initiative for the Elimination of Avoidable $iUK, ?  
Blindness, sponsored by the World Health Organization, j5Vyo>  
states that cataract surgical services should be provided that BKPXXR  
‘have a high success rate in terms of visual outcome and :;cKns0OA  
improved quality of life’,17 although the ‘high success rate’ is g>12!2}  
not defined. Population- and clinic-based studies conducted |>5NH'agV  
in the United States have demonstrated marked improvement 1\z5[ _  
in visual acuity following cataract surgery.18–20 We OIGu`%~js  
found that 85% of eyes that had undergone cataract extraction {" woBOaA  
had visual acuity of 6/12 or better. Previously, we have gXZC%S  
shown that participants with prevalent cataract in this W=|sy-N{2  
cohort are more likely to express dissatisfaction with their _<yGen-  
current vision than participants without cataract or participants a6wPkf7-H  
with prior cataract surgery.21 In a national study in the F.i*'x0u  
United States, researchers found that the change in patients’ >B<jR$`6@  
ratings of their vision difficulties and satisfaction with their ekND>Qjj  
vision after cataract surgery were more highly related to ~2+J]8@I]  
their change in visual functioning score than to their change H:Y?("k  
in visual acuity.19 Furthermore, improvement in visual function 87l(a,#J  
has been shown to be associated with improvement in kG@~;*;l  
overall quality of life.22 ShbW[*5  
A recent review found that the incidence of visually FpN>T  
significant posterior capsule opacification following -L%tiz`_  
cataract surgery to be greater than 25%.23 We found 36% \CNv,HUm3  
capsulotomy in our population and that this was associated i}"Eu< P  
with visual acuity similar to that of eyes with a clear }G}2Y (  
capsule, but significantly better than that of eyes with an nb ::,  
opaque capsule. luXcr H+w  
A number of studies have shown that the demand and R@zl?>+  
timing of cataract surgery vary according to visual acuity, 0*$?=E  
degree of handicap and socioeconomic factors.8–10,24,25 We 6WUP#c@{  
have also shown previously that ophthalmologists are more  {}x{ OP  
likely to refer a patient for cataract surgery if the patient is =, kH(rp2  
employed and less likely to refer a nursing home resident.7 fP 4  
In the Visual Impairment Project, we did not find that any P(h[QAM  
particular subgroup of the population was at greater risk of K`%{(^}.  
having unoperated cataract. Universal access to health care &IYSoA"Nz  
in Australia may explain the fact that people without !| ObNS  
Medicare are more likely to delay cataract operations in the =VXxQ\{  
USA,8 but not having private health insurance is not associated lO)-QE+  
with unoperated cataract in Australia. .zDm{_'  
In summary, cataract is a significant public health problem &.D#OnRh9  
in that one in four people in their 80s will have had cataract 2g'o5B\ *  
surgery. The importance of age-related cataract surgery will 8":O\^i  
increase further with the ageing of the population: the H!6nIS9yxt  
number of people over age 60 years is expected to double in ..u2IdEu  
the next 20 years. Cataract surgery services are well t^ax:6;"|  
accessed by the Victorian population and the visual outcomes #0*OkZMt  
of cataract surgery have been shown to be very good. qC|$0  
These data can be used to plan for age-related cataract b Ag>;e(  
surgical services in Australia in the future as the need for 22`N(_  
cataract extractions increases. )TH~Tq:  
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ?U^h:n  
The Visual Impairment Project was funded in part by grants @ckOLtxE>  
from the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, the Aw~N"i  
National Health and Medical Research Council, the Ansell @20~R/vh  
Ophthalmology Foundation, the Dorothy Edols Estate and 7E 4Xvg+c  
the Jack Brockhoff Foundation. Dr McCarty is the recipient 335\0~;3  
of a Wagstaff Fellowship in Ophthalmology from the Royal IJnh@?BC  
Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital. X!'nfN  
REFERENCES ~sk{O%OI  
1. Keeffe JE, Taylor HR. Cataract surgery in Australia 1985–94. =5 zx]N1r  
Aust. N.Z. J. Ophthalmol. 1996; 24: 313–17. u=mJI*  
2. Sperduto RD, Hiller R. The prevalence of nuclear, cortical, J3;dRW  
and posterior subcapsular lens opacities in a general population R3`Rrj Z  
sample. Ophthalmology 1984; 91: 815–18. !Eof7LUE  
3. Maraini G, Pasquini P, Sperduto RD et al. Distribution of lens _mi(:s(  
opacities in the Italian-American case–control study of agerelated ]n/fB|tE  
cataract. Ophthalmology 1990; 97: 752–6. jT6zpi~]E  
4. Klein BEK, Klein R, Linton KLP. Prevalence of age-related }'o[6#_*X  
lens opacities in a population. The Beaver Dam Eye Study. P2Or|_z  
Ophthalmology 1992; 99: 546–52. lMcSe8LBQa  
5. Guiffrè G, Giammanco R, Di Pace F, Ponte F. Casteldaccia eye ^mNPP:%iN  
study: prevalence of cataract in the adult and elderly population s</llJ$  
of a Mediterranean town. Int. Ophthalmol. 1995; 18: cdH Ug#  
363–71. XIrNT:h4  
6. Mitchell P, Cumming RG, Attebo K, Panchapakesan J. |>Xw "]b;  
Prevalence of cataract in Australia. The Blue Mountains Eye .x^`y2'U  
Study. Ophthalmology 1997; 104: 581–8. 2k^dxk~$V;  
7. Keeffe JE, McCarty CA, Chang WP, Steinberg EP, Taylor HR. [H3~b=  
Relative importance of VA, patient concern and patient wu2AhMGmw  
lifestyle on referral for cataract surgery. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. CCX!>k]  
Sci. 1996; 37: S183. h0N*h x   
8. Curbow B, Legro MW, Brenner MH. The influence of patientrelated 0M?nXHA[  
variables in the timing of cataract extraction. Am. J. jgr2qSU C  
Ophthalmol. 1993; 115: 614–22. kS>'6xXH  
9. Sletteberg OH, Høvding G, Bertelsen T. Do we operate too -CTsB)=\,  
many cataracts? The referred cataract patients’ own appraisal LX %8a^?;  
of their need for surgery. Acta Ophthalmol. Scand. 1995; 73: FZ)Y<r8|s  
77–80. 0shNwV1zF  
10. Escarce JJ. Would eliminating differences in physician practice D4"](RXH  
style reduce geographic variations in cataract surgery rates? `R}D@  
Med. Care 1993; 31: 1106–18. o adlyqlw#  
11. Livingston PM, Carson CA, Stanislavsky YL, Lee SE, Guest -9S.G  
CS, Taylor HR. Methods for a population-based study of eye 1m/=MET]  
disease: the Melbourne Visual Impairment Project. Ophthalmic r|Y|u v0  
Epidemiol. 1994; 1: 139–48. ,x+_/kqx  
12. Taylor HR, West SK. A simple system for the clinical grading {C%/>e2-%  
of lens opacities. Lens Res. 1988; 5: 175–81. u+]v. Mt  
82 McCarty et al. Qa,^;hZWS  
13. Cochran WG. Sampling Techniques. New York: John Wiley & cLQvzd:h=  
Sons, 1977; 249–73. ?80@+y]  
14. Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical Methods in Cancer Research. Volume  *it(o  
II – the Design and Analysis of Cohort Studies. Lyon: International yG0Wr=/<?  
Agency for Research on Cancer; 1987; 52–61. pGi "*oZD  
15. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 1996 Census of Population and 'aB0abr|  
Housing. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1997. `d=$9Pi  
16. Livingston PM, Lee SE, McCarty CA, Taylor HR. A comparison bOCdf"!g  
of participants with non-participants in a populationbased qYFol# =%  
epidemiologic study: the Melbourne Visual Impairment ;G.m;5A  
Project. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 1997; 4: 73–82. y(:hN)  
17. Programme for the Prevention of Blindness. Global Initiative for the {uO8VL5+Qx  
Elimination of Avoidable Blindness. Geneva: World Health n=RAE^[M  
Organization, 1997. OwP9=9};  
18. Applegate WB, Miller ST, Elam JT, Freeman JM, Wood TO, xPh%?j?*v  
Gettlefinger TC. Impact of cataract surgery with lens implantation Z*kGWL  
on vision and physical function in elderly patients. O0"i>}g4  
JAMA 1987; 257: 1064–6. +1p>:cih  
19. Steinberg EP, Tielsch JM, Schein OD et al. National Study of a#1LGH7E8  
Cataract Surgery Outcomes. Variation in 4-month postoperative tc@ U_>{  
outcomes as reflected in multiple outcome measures. Q8M&nf  
Ophthalmology 1994; 101:1131–41. )BTJs)E  
20. Klein BEK, Klein R, Moss SE. Change in visual acuity associated ~}4o=O(  
with cataract surgery. The Beaver Dam Eye Study. +[r%y,k  
Ophthalmology 1996; 103: 1727–31. d{0 w4_x  
21. McCarty CA, Keeffe JE, Taylor HR. The need for cataract n/s!S &  
surgery: projections based on lens opacity, visual acuity, and 'oTcx Jx  
personal concern. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1999; 83: 62–5. i#1T68y}  
22. Brenner MH, Curbow B, Javitt JC, Legro MW, Sommer A. 7& k lX  
Vision change and quality of life in the elderly. Response to -p ) l63  
cataract surgery and treatment of other ocular conditions. _OcgD<  
Arch. Ophthalmol. 1993; 111: 680–5. e=Kv[R'(M  
23. Schaumberg DA, Dana MR, Christen WG, Glynn RJ. A Sct-,K%i  
systematic overview of the incidence of posterior capsule 5DyN=[b  
opacification. Ophthalmology 1998; 105: 1213–21. U3lr<(r*  
24. Mordue A, Parkin DW, Baxter C, Fawcett G, Stewart M. dWD,iO_"@  
Thresholds for treatment in cataract surgery. J. Public Health ; Z61|@Y  
Med. 1994; 16: 393–8. yixW>W}  
25. Norregaard JC, Bernth-Peterson P, Alonso J et al. Variations in nB,FJJ{kb  
indications for cataract surgery in the United States, Denmark, (L|SE4  
Canada, and Spain: results from the International Cataract v.6" <nT2  
Surgery Outcomes Study. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1998; 82: 1107–11.
评价一下你浏览此帖子的感受

精彩

感动

搞笑

开心

愤怒

无聊

灌水

  
描述
快速回复

验证问题:
5+2=? 正确答案:7
按"Ctrl+Enter"直接提交