ABSTRACT
lv%9MW0
z Purpose: To quantify the prevalence of cataract, the outcomes
u92^(| of cataract surgery and the factors related to
^D{
lPu
3 unoperated cataract in Australia.
SaOYu &> Methods: Participants were recruited from the Visual
r;&>iX4B Impairment Project: a cluster, stratified sample of more than
K`g7$r)U[ 5000 Victorians aged 40 years and over. At examination
p-GAe,2q sites interviews, clinical examinations and lens photography
T>`74B: were performed. Cataract was defined in participants who
Ztr Cv? had: had previous cataract surgery, cortical cataract greater
{)8>jxQN than 4/16, nuclear greater than Wilmer standard 2, or
)wvHGecp* posterior subcapsular greater than 1 mm2.
P!G858V( Results: The participant group comprised 3271 Melbourne
QX4ai3v residents, 403 Melbourne nursing home residents and 1473
Ej".axjT rural residents.The weighted rate of any cataract in Victoria
4d
b(<h was 21.5%. The overall weighted rate of prior cataract
Y_woKc* surgery was 3.79%. Two hundred and forty-nine eyes had
},+wJ1 had prior cataract surgery. Of these 249 procedures, 49
^.dsW0"0 (20%) were aphakic, 6 (2.4%) had anterior chamber
fk1ASV<rN intraocular lenses and 194 (78%) had posterior chamber
#P
l~R intraocular lenses.Two hundred and eleven of these operated
+LM#n#T eyes (85%) had best-corrected visual acuity of 6/12 or
~T&<CTh better, the legal requirement for a driver’s license.Twentyseven
?qCK7$j (11%) had visual acuity of less than 6/18 (moderate
$YN6<5R) vision impairment). Complications of cataract surgery
])xx<5Jt4 caused reduced vision in four of the 27 eyes (15%), or 1.9%
a}%#*J)! of operated eyes. Three of these four eyes had undergone
+s- lCz intracapsular cataract extraction and the fourth eye had an
<Utnz) opaque posterior capsule. No one had bilateral vision
GrUCZ<S impairment as a result of cataract surgery. Surprisingly, no
|B?27PD particular demographic factors (such as age, gender, rural
fQ#l3@in residence, occupation, employment status, health insurance
(M*FIX status, ethnicity) were related to the presence of unoperated
`s\
?w5[ cataract.
N[s}qmPha Conclusions: Although the overall prevalence of cataract is
.zi_[ quite high, no particular subgroup is systematically underserviced
|&RU/ a in terms of cataract surgery. Overall, the results of
-i0~]* cataract surgery are very good, with the majority of eyes
vQ;Ex achieving driving vision following cataract extraction.
0u;4%}pD Key words: cataract extraction, health planning, health
i\,-oO services accessibility, prevalence
gIjh:_ Pz INTRODUCTION
-[cTx[Z, Cataract is the leading cause of blindness worldwide and, in
ibj87K Australia, cataract extractions account for the majority of all
OX\A|$GS ophthalmic procedures.1 Over the period 1985–94, the rate
wB.&}p9p of cataract surgery in Australia was twice as high as would be
be.*#[ expected from the growth in the elderly population.1
<J)]mh dm Although there have been a number of studies reporting
PGqQ@6B the prevalence of cataract in various populations,2–6 there is
Z&1\{PG3* little information about determinants of cataract surgery in
<3LbNFP the population. A previous survey of Australian ophthalmologists
x(1:s|Uyp{ showed that patient concern and lifestyle, rather
nLXlU*ES than visual acuity itself, are the primary factors for referral
fp`;U_-&0 for cataract surgery.7 This supports prior research which has
F1*>y shown that visual acuity is not a strong predictor of need for
y
[}.yyye cataract surgery.8,9 Elsewhere, socioeconomic status has
|-:()yxs been shown to be related to cataract surgery rates.10
bCRV\myd` To appropriately plan health care services, information is
KcWN,!G needed about the prevalence of age-related cataract in the
V%rzk*LA community as well as the factors associated with cataract
+r2+X:#~T surgery. The purpose of this study is to quantify the prevalence
j()7_ of any cataract in Australia, to describe the factors
,Vc6Gwm related to unoperated cataract in the community and to
rV ` #[d describe the visual outcomes of cataract surgery.
(KjoSN(
K METHODS
5-:?&|JK; Study population
G#ZH.24Y Details about the study methodology for the Visual
8{^kQ/]'| Impairment Project have been published previously.11
G/)O@Ugp Briefly, cluster sampling within three strata was employed to
D+rxT:
d recruit subjects aged 40 years and over to participate.
0yk]o5a++ Within the Melbourne Statistical Division, nine pairs of
W=~
~5jFX census collector districts were randomly selected. Fourteen
l{*@v=b( nursing homes within a 5 km radius of these nine test sites
/CrSu were randomly chosen to recruit nursing home residents.
}7b%HTF= Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology (2000) 28, 77–82
)3cAQ'w Original Article
'g}! Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia
N=V==Dbu- Catherine A McCarty PhD, MPH, Mukesh B Nanjan PhD, Hugh R Taylor MD
9)l$ aBa Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
y6g&Y.:o n Correspondence: Dr Cathy McCarty MPH, Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, 32 Gisborne Street, East Melbourne,
j
*
% Victoria 3002, Australia. Email:
cathy@cera.unimelb.edu.au \;,_S+Fz8 78 McCarty et al.
xVw9v6@`h Finally, four pairs of census collector districts in four rural
D(~U6SR Victorian communities were randomly selected to recruit rural
))qy;Q, residents. A household census was conducted to identify
#NQMy:JHD) eligible residents aged 40 years and over who had been a
0j^Kgx resident at that address for at least 6 months. At the time of
9=s<Ld
the household census, basic information about age, sex,
W~)}xy country of birth, language spoken at home, education, use of
t$` r4Lb9/ corrective spectacles and use of eye care services was collected.
Mc) }\{J Eligible residents were then invited to attend a local
aHD]k8m z examination site for a more detailed interview and examination.
[DuttFX^x The study protocol was approved by the Royal Victorian
Zj(AJ* r Eye and Ear Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee.
9i:L&d
N Assessment of cataract
IW5,7
. A standardized ophthalmic examination was performed after
Y/F6\oh pupil dilatation with one drop of 10% phenylephrine
I{|O "8 hydrochloride. Lens opacities were graded clinically at the
{ qk1_yP time of the examination and subsequently from photos using
aj='b.2) the Wilmer cataract photo-grading system.12 Cortical and
8]c2r%J posterior subcapsular (PSC) opacities were assessed on
KYm0@O>; retroillumination and measured as the proportion (in 1/16)
m!!/Za of pupil circumference occupied by opacity. For this analysis,
70d 1ReQ cortical cataract was defined as 4/16 or greater opacity,
ic:zsuEm PSC cataract was defined as opacity equal to or greater than
s S+MqBh&I 1 mm2 and nuclear cataract was defined as opacity equal to
!)f\%lb or greater than Wilmer standard 2,12 independent of visual
7sCG^&Y acuity. Examples of the minimum opacities defined as cortical,
LBeF&sb6 nuclear and PSC cataract are presented in Figure 1.
K-)]
1BG Bilateral congenital cataracts or cataracts secondary to
fUWG*o9 intraocular inflammation or trauma were excluded from the
n`_{9R analysis. Two cases of bilateral secondary cataract and eight
mthA4sz cases of bilateral congenital cataract were excluded from the
^L
nTOdAE analyses.
,Fl)^Gl8? A Topcon® SL5 photo slit-lamp (Topcon America Corp.,
,<_
A2t 2 Paramus, NJ, USA) with a 0.1 mm slit beam of 9.0 mm in
QO:!p5^: height set to an incident angle of 30° was used for examinations.
n+9=1Oo" Ektachrome® 200 ASA colour slide film (Eastman
eb{nWP Kodak Company, Rochester, NY, USA) was used to photograph
!?jrf ]
A@ the nuclear opacities. The cortical opacities were
9rX&uP)j^# photographed with an Oxford® retroillumination camera
]jQ
utlg| (Marcher Enterprises Ltd, Hereford, UK) and T-MAX® 400
iq8<ov
film (Eastman Kodak). Photographs were graded separately
Xu'&ynID by two research assistants and discrepancies were adjudicated
^Z+?h&%% by an independent reviewer. Any discrepancies
7F7{)L between the clinical grades and the photograph grades were
\:'/'^=#| resolved. Except in cases where photographs were missing,
[S%_In the photograph grades were used in the analyses. Photograph
|s(FLF - grades were available for 4301 (84%) for cortical
P1 8hxXE3 cataract, 4147 (81%) for nuclear cataract and 4303 (84%)
{lDd.Fn for PSC cataract. Cataract status was classified according to
/Iy]DU8 the severity of the opacity in the worse eye.
!Pvf;rNI1T Assessment of risk factors
dL 1tl A standardized questionnaire was used to obtain information
y2d
CEmhY about education, employment and ethnic background.11
#Y`~(K47 Specific information was elicited on the occurrence, duration
6<SAa#@ey and treatment of a number of medical conditions,
6vo;!V6 including ocular trauma, arthritis, diabetes, gout, hypertension
G6P?2@ and mental illness. Information about the use, dose and
qJs<#MQ2 duration of tobacco, alcohol, analgesics and steriods were
3
3x{CY15 collected, and a food frequency questionnaire was used to
4r#= * determine current consumption of dietary sources of antioxidants
iL&f
gF"' and use of vitamin supplements.
~"H,/m%2o Data management and statistical analysis
)p0^zv{ Data were collected either by direct computer entry with a
CS5?Ti6 questionnaire programmed in Paradox© (Carel Corporation,
'~<m~UXvD# Ottawa, Canada) with internal consistency checks, or
rSk> on self-coding forms. Open-ended responses were coded at
DB|Y a later time. Data that were entered on the self-coded forms
,j{,h_Op were entered into a computer with double data entry and
rig,mv reconciliation of any inconsistencies. Data range and consistency
`/XY>T}- checks were performed on the entire data set.
[< ?s?Ci SAS© version 6.1 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina) was
y/{fX(aV employed for statistical analyses.
x%m%_2%Z Ninety-five per cent confidence limits around the agespecific
mt{nm[D!Xp rates were calculated according to Cochran13 to
w^|*m/h|@u account for the effect of the cluster sampling. Ninety-five
61>.vT8P per cent confidence limits around age-standardized rates
^z IW+: were calculated according to Breslow and Day.14 The strataspecific
\BTODZ:h data were weighted according to the 1996
T{.pM4Hd Australian Bureau of Statistics census data15 to reflect the
4y?n
[/M/ cataract prevalence in the entire Victorian population.
jh%Eq+#S Univariate analyses with Student’s t-tests and chi-squared
gnOt+W8 tests were first employed to evaluate risk factors for unoperated
mbTEp*H cataract. Any factors with P < 0.10 were then fitted
%KhI
>O< into a backwards stepwise logistic regression model. For the
D9=KXo^ Figure 1. Minimum levels of cortical (a), nuclear (b), and posterior subcapsular (c) cataract.
HZC"nb}r4 final multivariate models, P < 0.05 was considered statistically
{0wIR_dGX significant. Design effect was assessed through the use
4K#>f4(U`g of cluster-specific models and multivariate models. The
u<tbbKM design effect was assumed to be additive and an adjustment
+US!YU made in the variance by adding the variance associated with
(l~AV9!m: the design effect prior to constructing the 95% confidence
d9fC<Tp limits.
S]e|"n~@ RESULTS
QC
OM_$ y Study population
S"bg9o A total of 3271 (83%) of the Melbourne residents, 403
y1eWpPJa (90%) Melbourne nursing home residents, and 1473 (92%)
SuJ aL-; rural residents participated. In general, non-participants did
DZ'P@f)] not differ from participants.16 The study population was
y
*jp79G representative of the Victorian population and Australia as
,GbR!j@6 a whole.
]b:Lo The Melbourne residents ranged in age from 40 to
H7&8\FNa 98 years (mean = 59) and 1511 (46%) were male. The
m{Wu"
;e Melbourne nursing home residents ranged in age from 46 to
,*TmIPNK
101 years (mean = 82) and 85 (21%) were men. The rural
TVtvuvQ2K residents ranged in age from 40 to 103 years (mean = 60)
i4Q@K,$ and 701 (47.5%) were men.
T"}5}6rSG Prevalence of cataract and prior cataract surgery
1Kw+,.@d As would be expected, the rate of any cataract increases
(&Kk7<#` dramatically with age (Table 1). The weighted rate of any
MO]F1E
?X cataract in Victoria was 21.5% (95% CL 18.1, 24.9).
~|DUt Although the rates varied somewhat between the three
I3{PZhU. strata, they were not significantly different as the 95% confidence
!7O+og
L limits overlapped. The per cent of cataractous eyes
'5#^i: with best-corrected visual acuity of less than 6/12 was 12.5%
Zgp4`)}: (65/520) for cortical cataract, 18% for nuclear cataract
U/66L+1 (97/534) and 14.4% (27/187) for PSC cataract. Cataract
)Yh+c=6
? surgery also rose dramatically with age. The overall
a_^\=&?' weighted rate of prior cataract surgery in Victoria was
q5J5> 3.79% (95% CL 2.97, 4.60) (Table 2).
pGP7nw_g Risk factors for unoperated cataract
zJKv'>? Cases of cataract that had not been removed were classified
)` Sr fGp8 as unoperated cataract. Risk factor analyses for unoperated
/e5O"@ cataract were not performed with the nursing home residents
T#T*Zw"+ as information about risk factor exposure was not
!,_u)4 available for this cohort. The following factors were assessed
)W,aN)1) in relation to unoperated cataract: age, sex, residence
,i^9 |Oeq (urban/rural), language spoken at home (a measure of ethnic
ih-#5M@ integration), country of birth, parents’ country of birth (a
ch*8
B(: measure of ethnicity), years since migration, education, use
d~])K#oJ of ophthalmic services, use of optometric services, private
x /(^7#u, health insurance status, duration of distance glasses use,
hk;5w{t}} glaucoma, age-related maculopathy and employment status.
Q^P}\wb> In this cross sectional study it was not possible to assess the
2"v6
>b% level of visual acuity that would predict a patient’s having
zF`0J cataract surgery, as visual acuity data prior to cataract
7(1|xYCx$ surgery were not available.
udK%> The significant risk factors for unoperated cataract in univariate
~Py`P'+ analyses were related to: whether a participant had
\{_q.;} ever seen an optometrist, seen an ophthalmologist or been
B&M%I:i diagnosed with glaucoma; and participants’ employment
\k7"=yx status (currently employed) and age. These significant
df8k7D;~e factors were placed in a backwards stepwise logistic regression
3GYw+%Z] model. The factors that remained significantly related
+%z>H"J. to unoperated cataract were whether participants had ever
>a<.mU|# seen an ophthalmologist, seen an optometrist and been
fCd&D diagnosed with glaucoma. None of the demographic factors
*gb*LhgO were associated with unoperated cataract in the multivariate
F} yW/ model.
BGZ#wru The per cent of participants with unoperated cataract
x3=A:}t8 who said that they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with
T9|m7 Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia 79
un"Gozmt5 Table 1. Prevalence of any cataracta (excluding previous cataract surgery) by age, gender and cohort
JPI3[.o Age group Sex Urban Rural Nursing home Weighted total
HXC ;Np (years) (%) (%) (%)
=+-UJo5 40–49 Male 2.56 4.04 0.00 3.00 (1.91, 4.08)
F`W?II? Female 2.61 1.70 0.00 2.36 (1.61, 3.10)
Zd%k*BC 50–59 Male 7.69 6.94 0.00 7.47 (5.80, 9.15)
:gibfk]C Female 6.67 7.56 0.00 6.92 (5.60, 8.24)
q-2Bt,Y 60–69 Male 20.7 25.0 10.0 22.0 (18.1, 26.0)
#$07:UJ Female 27.9 35.7 37.5 30.3 (26.0, 34.7)
h
0Q5-EA 70–79 Male 43.1 58.7 39.1 48.1 (41.2, 55.1)
Xza(k Female 58.6 66.2 55.6 61.0 (56.0, 65.9)
kd(8I_i@ 80–89 Male 74.0 89.3 92.0 79.3 (72.3, 86.3)
DU'`ewLL7 Female 91.9 97.0 80.2 92.6 (86.4, 98.8)
%JBz5G 90 + Male 100.0 100.0 75.0 98.8 (96.2, 100.0)
hBUn \~z Female 100.0 100.0 93.8 98.6 (97.0, 100.0)
C`9+6T Age-standardized
9wwqcx)3( (95% CL) Combined 19.7 (16.3, 23.1) 23.2 (16.1, 30.2) 16.5 (2.06, 30.9) 21.5 (18.1, 25.0)
n5NsmVW \x aCortical > 4/16, nuclear > standard 2, posterior subcapsular > 1 mm2
}@+0/
W?\. their current vision was 30% (290/683), compared with 27%
lvz7#f L~ (26/95) of participants with prior cataract surgery (chisquared,
.@U@xRu7| 1 d.f. = 0.25, P = 0.62).
Om\vMd@! Outcomes of cataract surgery
"?xHlYj@+ Two hundred and forty-nine eyes had undergone prior
,!y$qVg'\f cataract surgery. Of these 249 operated eyes, 49 (20%) were
S`0(*A[W* left aphakic, 6 (2.4%) had anterior chamber intraocular
0&|\N
? 8_ lenses and 194 (78%) had posterior chamber intraocular
,T$U'&; lenses. The rate of capsulotomy in the eyes with intact
'Aq{UGN posterior capsules was 36% (73/202). Fifteen per cent of
.j0$J
\:i eyes (17/114) with a clear posterior capsule had bestcorrected
)~JHgl visual acuity of less than 6/12 compared with 43%
WlC:l of eyes (6/14) with opaque capsules, and 15% of eyes
w``ST (11/73) with prior capsulotomies (chi-squared, 2 d.f. = 7.21,
q ^N7I@Y P = 0.027).
dOH
& The percentage of eyes with best-corrected visual acuity
{qJ1ko)$ of 6/12 or better was 96% (302/314) for eyes without
K;H&n1 cataract, 88% (1417/1609) for eyes with prevalent cataract
qWPkT$ u and 85% (211/249) for eyes with operated cataract (chisquared,
,Ah;A
[%?~ 2 d.f. = 22.3), P < 0.001). Twenty-seven of the
{]@= ijjf operated eyes (11%) had visual acuities of less than 6/18
0-Ku7<a (moderate vision impairment) (Fig. 2). A cause of this
aSQ#k;T[ moderate visual impairment (but not the only cause) in four
Vv=. -&' (15%) eyes was secondary to cataract surgery. Three of these
\?k'4rH four eyes had undergone intracapsular cataract extraction
#r\4sVg and the fourth eye had an opaque posterior capsule. No one
16( QR- had bilateral vision impairment as a result of their cataract
uZK
r surgery.
2eY_%Y0 DISCUSSION
.[OUI To our knowledge, this is the first paper to systematically
`d`T*_ assess the prevalence of current cataract, previous cataract
K
Z91- surgery, predictors of unoperated cataract and the outcomes
WP'!*[z of cataract surgery in a population-based sample. The Visual
_A9AEi'. Impairment Project is unique in that the sampling frame and
>}i E( high response rate have ensured that the study population is
e6$W Qd`O representative of Australians aged 40 years and over. Therefore,
{hrX'2:ClT these data can be used to plan age-related cataract
c`w}|d]mC services throughout Australia.
?IT*:A]E We found the rate of any cataract in those over the age
-x`@6 of 40 years to be 22%. Although relatively high, this rate is
FWgpnI\X|{ significantly less than was reported in a number of previous
hMD|#A-
< studies,2,4,6 with the exception of the Casteldaccia Eye
'zuIBOH`j3 Study.5 However, it is difficult to compare rates of cataract
T+H!_ky`A between studies because of different methodologies and
vV-`jsq20H cataract definitions employed in the various studies, as well
Z,Dl` w as the different age structures of the study populations.
`7V]y- Other studies have used less conservative definitions of
S3Xl cataract, thus leading to higher rates of cataract as defined.
{fT6O&br In most large epidemiologic studies of cataract, visual acuity
l}A93
jSL has not been included in the definition of cataract.
$}<e|3_ Therefore, the prevalence of cataract may not reflect the
MeZf*'
J actual need for cataract surgery in the community.
R%[ c;i 80 McCarty et al.
]Gq !`O1 Table 2. Prevalence of previous cataract by age, gender and cohort
U9MxI%tb Age group Gender Urban Rural Nursing home Weighted total
j3E7zRm] \ (years) (%) (%) (%)
V1B5w_^>h' 40–49 Male 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.80 (0.00, 1.81)
)MTOU47U Female 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (
d5:c^` 50–59 Male 0.68 0.58 0.00 0.65 (0.13, 1.17)
m^;f(IK5 Female 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.41 (0.00, 1.00)
}b.%Im<3R 60–69 Male 2.12 7.59 0.00 3.80 (1.41, 6.19)
|Ds1 Female 2.11 3.51 0.00 2.54 (1.81, 3.26)
D2~*&'4y 70–79 Male 8.22 9.85 8.70 8.75 (6.38, 11.1)
draN0vf Female 7.21 7.86 7.02 7.41 (5.36, 9.46)
gp.^~p]x 80–89 Male 25.0 30.0 14.3 26.2 (17.0, 35.4)
Z"fJ`-- Female 27.9 25.6 18.3 26.7 (20.2, 33.3)
1=Z0w +v{ 90 + Male 0.00 16.7 66.7 9.19 (0.00, 21.5)
I51@QJX Female 58.3 100.0 26.9 63.1 (44.4, 81.8)
Vs!Nmv` Age-standardized
I9ep`X6Y (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)
o0KL5]. Figure 2. Visual acuity in eyes that had undergone cataract
k~w*W X' surgery, n = 249. h, Presenting; j, best-corrected.
A6(/;+n Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia 81
H"WprHe The weighted prevalence of prior cataract surgery in the
&^Q/,H~S Visual Impairment Project (3.6%) was similar to the crude
JZyAXm% rate in the Beaver Dam Eye Study4 (3.1%), but less than the
\
}G>8^ crude rate in the Blue Mountains Eye Study6 (6.0%).
cyz3,3\e However, the age-standardized rate in the Blue Mountains
xU`p|(SS- Eye Study (standardized to the age distribution of the urban
{R6ZKB Visual Impairment Project cohort) was found to be less than
R8'RA%O9J the Visual Impairment Project (standardized rate = 1.36%,
U # qK. 95% CL 1.25, 1.47). The incidence of cataract surgery in
brUF6rQ Australia has exceeded population growth.1 This is due,
Xc&9Glf perhaps, to advances in surgical techniques and lens
d7bS
wL implants that have changed the risk–benefit ratio.
{I't]Qj_e The Global Initiative for the Elimination of Avoidable
u]UOSf n Blindness, sponsored by the World Health Organization,
}@d @3 states that cataract surgical services should be provided that
I%KYtv~` ‘have a high success rate in terms of visual outcome and
IW] rb/H improved quality of life’,17 although the ‘high success rate’ is
:^h$AWR^f not defined. Population- and clinic-based studies conducted
x7 ,5 in the United States have demonstrated marked improvement
s!$a\ k in visual acuity following cataract surgery.18–20 We
{ 2f-8Z&> found that 85% of eyes that had undergone cataract extraction
@`9]F7h5W had visual acuity of 6/12 or better. Previously, we have
Ml-6
OvQ7g shown that participants with prevalent cataract in this
;Q`lNFa cohort are more likely to express dissatisfaction with their
~*];pV]A[ current vision than participants without cataract or participants
,Ma^ &ypH with prior cataract surgery.21 In a national study in the
X|]AT9W United States, researchers found that the change in patients’
a/xn'"eli ratings of their vision difficulties and satisfaction with their
8'y$M] e9n vision after cataract surgery were more highly related to
}W^A*]X their change in visual functioning score than to their change
K_}K@' in visual acuity.19 Furthermore, improvement in visual function
h^P#{
W!e\ has been shown to be associated with improvement in
XC#oB~K' overall quality of life.22
+G>\-tjSD A recent review found that the incidence of visually
Z*6IW7# significant posterior capsule opacification following
!ULn7\@ cataract surgery to be greater than 25%.23 We found 36%
C~exi[3 capsulotomy in our population and that this was associated
'8kP
.l with visual acuity similar to that of eyes with a clear
FW DNpr capsule, but significantly better than that of eyes with an
a(ZcmYzXU opaque capsule.
+:/%3}` A number of studies have shown that the demand and
"_?nN"
A7 timing of cataract surgery vary according to visual acuity,
0JujesUw( degree of handicap and socioeconomic factors.8–10,24,25 We
vW@=<aS Z have also shown previously that ophthalmologists are more
P[fq8lDA likely to refer a patient for cataract surgery if the patient is
)D%~`,#pQ employed and less likely to refer a nursing home resident.7
uCB=u[]y4 In the Visual Impairment Project, we did not find that any
%J-GKpo/S particular subgroup of the population was at greater risk of
<wHP2|<l* having unoperated cataract. Universal access to health care
|JsZJ9W+J in Australia may explain the fact that people without
4Wp=y Medicare are more likely to delay cataract operations in the
M )(DZ} USA,8 but not having private health insurance is not associated
+
>!;i6| with unoperated cataract in Australia.
3PF_H$`oJ In summary, cataract is a significant public health problem
b7ZSPXV in that one in four people in their 80s will have had cataract
N6TH}~62} surgery. The importance of age-related cataract surgery will
Zj
Z^_X3 increase further with the ageing of the population: the
z'7]h
TA number of people over age 60 years is expected to double in
~F#j#n(=`q the next 20 years. Cataract surgery services are well
5IpDeJ$ accessed by the Victorian population and the visual outcomes
@PIp*[7oC of cataract surgery have been shown to be very good.
{2gwk8 These data can be used to plan for age-related cataract
@E8+C8' surgical services in Australia in the future as the need for
$Y
gue5{c cataract extractions increases.
-ze J#B)C ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
&,)&%Sg[ The Visual Impairment Project was funded in part by grants
7PF%76TO from the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, the
,]/X\t5]D National Health and Medical Research Council, the Ansell
. 'yCw#f Ophthalmology Foundation, the Dorothy Edols Estate and
*n"{J(Jt` the Jack Brockhoff Foundation. Dr McCarty is the recipient
.o}v#W+st of a Wagstaff Fellowship in Ophthalmology from the Royal
9Gz=lc[!7 Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital.
q75s#[<ap REFERENCES
Ht
YwEj I 1. Keeffe JE, Taylor HR. Cataract surgery in Australia 1985–94.
'4<1 1(U Aust. N.Z. J. Ophthalmol. 1996; 24: 313–17.
@|T'0_' 2. Sperduto RD, Hiller R. The prevalence of nuclear, cortical,
M"To&?OI and posterior subcapsular lens opacities in a general population
3T0"" !Q sample. Ophthalmology 1984; 91: 815–18.
AkiDL=;w 3. Maraini G, Pasquini P, Sperduto RD et al. Distribution of lens
FXU8[j0P_G opacities in the Italian-American case–control study of agerelated
mB)bcuPv cataract. Ophthalmology 1990; 97: 752–6.
S`Rs82> 4. Klein BEK, Klein R, Linton KLP. Prevalence of age-related
)Xyn
q( lens opacities in a population. The Beaver Dam Eye Study.
% %UE+u@J Ophthalmology 1992; 99: 546–52.
Fv`,3aNB 5. Guiffrè G, Giammanco R, Di Pace F, Ponte F. Casteldaccia eye
Q=yg8CQ study: prevalence of cataract in the adult and elderly population
%vi83%$'4 of a Mediterranean town. Int. Ophthalmol. 1995; 18:
{H'Y `+ 363–71.
}\k"n{!" 6. Mitchell P, Cumming RG, Attebo K, Panchapakesan J.
#:%/(j Prevalence of cataract in Australia. The Blue Mountains Eye
Q#zmf24W Study. Ophthalmology 1997; 104: 581–8.
D^;Uq8NDKq 7. Keeffe JE, McCarty CA, Chang WP, Steinberg EP, Taylor HR.
^_mj Relative importance of VA, patient concern and patient
ufT`
"i lifestyle on referral for cataract surgery. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis.
uY'HT|@:{ Sci. 1996; 37: S183.
y"w
ShAR 8. Curbow B, Legro MW, Brenner MH. The influence of patientrelated
jWfa;&Ra variables in the timing of cataract extraction. Am. J.
8}| (0mC Ophthalmol. 1993; 115: 614–22.
k"w"hg&e 9. Sletteberg OH, Høvding G, Bertelsen T. Do we operate too
jRV/A!4
many cataracts? The referred cataract patients’ own appraisal
R{T$[$6S of their need for surgery. Acta Ophthalmol. Scand. 1995; 73:
*c+ (- 77–80.
!%0 *z 10. Escarce JJ. Would eliminating differences in physician practice
i
K? w6 style reduce geographic variations in cataract surgery rates?
$E.I84UfX Med. Care 1993; 31: 1106–18.
HyWCMK6b 11. Livingston PM, Carson CA, Stanislavsky YL, Lee SE, Guest
h'F=YF$o CS, Taylor HR. Methods for a population-based study of eye
0lR5<^B disease: the Melbourne Visual Impairment Project. Ophthalmic
V "h
+L7T Epidemiol. 1994; 1: 139–48.
n?Nt6U 12. Taylor HR, West SK. A simple system for the clinical grading
vRO
_Q? of lens opacities. Lens Res. 1988; 5: 175–81.
?5
7Sk+ 82 McCarty et al.
<UQbt N-B\ 13. Cochran WG. Sampling Techniques. New York: John Wiley &
Dm<A
^u8 Sons, 1977; 249–73.
<e</m)j 14. Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical Methods in Cancer Research. Volume
)+ 2hl II – the Design and Analysis of Cohort Studies. Lyon: International
d-dEQKI?; Agency for Research on Cancer; 1987; 52–61.
e**qF=HCw 15. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 1996 Census of Population and
6,{$J Housing. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1997.
Y/zj[> 16. Livingston PM, Lee SE, McCarty CA, Taylor HR. A comparison
Q$@I"V&G. of participants with non-participants in a populationbased
YcpoL@ab epidemiologic study: the Melbourne Visual Impairment
OpYY{f Project. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 1997; 4: 73–82.
V33T+P~j 17. Programme for the Prevention of Blindness. Global Initiative for the
@2 fg~2M1 Elimination of Avoidable Blindness. Geneva: World Health
v
z '&%( Organization, 1997.
81
sG
18. Applegate WB, Miller ST, Elam JT, Freeman JM, Wood TO,
N5b!.B x-w Gettlefinger TC. Impact of cataract surgery with lens implantation
%Y*Ndt 4 on vision and physical function in elderly patients.
+!.^zp21 JAMA 1987; 257: 1064–6.
0^K"> 19. Steinberg EP, Tielsch JM, Schein OD et al. National Study of
k_nql8H Cataract Surgery Outcomes. Variation in 4-month postoperative
o]I\6,T/| outcomes as reflected in multiple outcome measures.
_^%,x Ophthalmology 1994; 101:1131–41.
Cd}<a?m, 20. Klein BEK, Klein R, Moss SE. Change in visual acuity associated
(V67`Z ) with cataract surgery. The Beaver Dam Eye Study.
6zuTQ^pz Ophthalmology 1996; 103: 1727–31.
D7Q$
R:6| 21. McCarty CA, Keeffe JE, Taylor HR. The need for cataract
z/@slT surgery: projections based on lens opacity, visual acuity, and
fSvM(3Y<Qh personal concern. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1999; 83: 62–5.
R|87%&6'] 22. Brenner MH, Curbow B, Javitt JC, Legro MW, Sommer A.
Wf>R&o6tr Vision change and quality of life in the elderly. Response to
Sw,+p cataract surgery and treatment of other ocular conditions.
aNspMJ Arch. Ophthalmol. 1993; 111: 680–5.
N)\.
[v 23. Schaumberg DA, Dana MR, Christen WG, Glynn RJ. A
O) n~](sC\ systematic overview of the incidence of posterior capsule
C7ScS"~ opacification. Ophthalmology 1998; 105: 1213–21.
@>2i+)=E5 24. Mordue A, Parkin DW, Baxter C, Fawcett G, Stewart M.
q Y?j#fzi Thresholds for treatment in cataract surgery. J. Public Health
ywmo#qYe Med. 1994; 16: 393–8.
h_,i&d@( 25. Norregaard JC, Bernth-Peterson P, Alonso J et al. Variations in
9W1YW9rL indications for cataract surgery in the United States, Denmark,
b&N'C9/8 Canada, and Spain: results from the International Cataract
9ZsVy Surgery Outcomes Study. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1998; 82: 1107–11.