ABSTRACT
d?qz7#kc Purpose: To quantify the prevalence of cataract, the outcomes
8iB}a\]B of cataract surgery and the factors related to
p-
_j0zv unoperated cataract in Australia.
*G38N]|u6 Methods: Participants were recruited from the Visual
UgJHSl Impairment Project: a cluster, stratified sample of more than
uq_SF.a'v 5000 Victorians aged 40 years and over. At examination
:4dili4|/ sites interviews, clinical examinations and lens photography
{zcjTJ=Zt8 were performed. Cataract was defined in participants who
hB4.tMgZ had: had previous cataract surgery, cortical cataract greater
<dZ{E7l than 4/16, nuclear greater than Wilmer standard 2, or
6 s/O\A posterior subcapsular greater than 1 mm2.
m[XN,IE#u Results: The participant group comprised 3271 Melbourne
R_&>iu'[ residents, 403 Melbourne nursing home residents and 1473
t +VPX2 rural residents.The weighted rate of any cataract in Victoria
4KKNw9L) was 21.5%. The overall weighted rate of prior cataract
6)8']f surgery was 3.79%. Two hundred and forty-nine eyes had
4C$,X!kzF had prior cataract surgery. Of these 249 procedures, 49
J&?kezs (20%) were aphakic, 6 (2.4%) had anterior chamber
i.]}ooI intraocular lenses and 194 (78%) had posterior chamber
l #Tm
`br intraocular lenses.Two hundred and eleven of these operated
&*}S 0 eyes (85%) had best-corrected visual acuity of 6/12 or
F&\o1g-L better, the legal requirement for a driver’s license.Twentyseven
h0`)= (11%) had visual acuity of less than 6/18 (moderate
K{c^.&6D vision impairment). Complications of cataract surgery
[O3R(`<e5 caused reduced vision in four of the 27 eyes (15%), or 1.9%
`u-}E9{ of operated eyes. Three of these four eyes had undergone
z"-Urd^O intracapsular cataract extraction and the fourth eye had an
W$&Q.Z opaque posterior capsule. No one had bilateral vision
X*sF-T$. impairment as a result of cataract surgery. Surprisingly, no
e1#}/U particular demographic factors (such as age, gender, rural
-%A6eRShk residence, occupation, employment status, health insurance
psMagzr&)e status, ethnicity) were related to the presence of unoperated
_R]1J0 cataract.
REw3>/= Conclusions: Although the overall prevalence of cataract is
k $);<= ZI quite high, no particular subgroup is systematically underserviced
h(Z7a%_ in terms of cataract surgery. Overall, the results of
ecb[m2z cataract surgery are very good, with the majority of eyes
zUh(b=
, achieving driving vision following cataract extraction.
]Kf HuYjM Key words: cataract extraction, health planning, health
Ai/#C$MY$ services accessibility, prevalence
-{O2Nv- ]] INTRODUCTION
E?;W@MJi Cataract is the leading cause of blindness worldwide and, in
h1BdASn_ Australia, cataract extractions account for the majority of all
9(C
Ke, ophthalmic procedures.1 Over the period 1985–94, the rate
W&"FejD of cataract surgery in Australia was twice as high as would be
qP"m819m expected from the growth in the elderly population.1
XhS<GF% Although there have been a number of studies reporting
(<f[$
|% the prevalence of cataract in various populations,2–6 there is
xGA%/dy,; little information about determinants of cataract surgery in
29E^]IL? the population. A previous survey of Australian ophthalmologists
F8pLA@7[ showed that patient concern and lifestyle, rather
F4k`x/ak than visual acuity itself, are the primary factors for referral
,e;(\t: for cataract surgery.7 This supports prior research which has
)qKfTtN` shown that visual acuity is not a strong predictor of need for
7~IAgjo,@ cataract surgery.8,9 Elsewhere, socioeconomic status has
q
H+~rj been shown to be related to cataract surgery rates.10
j3FDGDrg To appropriately plan health care services, information is
lAoH@+dyA+ needed about the prevalence of age-related cataract in the
?(mlt"tPk community as well as the factors associated with cataract
G6I>Ry[2? surgery. The purpose of this study is to quantify the prevalence
O|8p
# of any cataract in Australia, to describe the factors
Kj'uTEM related to unoperated cataract in the community and to
j/9'L^] describe the visual outcomes of cataract surgery.
d`Wd"LJ= METHODS
YpAjZQZ, Study population
(_d^iZyf Details about the study methodology for the Visual
.~Td/o7 Impairment Project have been published previously.11
h'wI/Z_' Briefly, cluster sampling within three strata was employed to
&u.t5m7( recruit subjects aged 40 years and over to participate.
GUMO;rZs Within the Melbourne Statistical Division, nine pairs of
ab6KK$s census collector districts were randomly selected. Fourteen
gi~*1RIel; nursing homes within a 5 km radius of these nine test sites
:] :q=1;c were randomly chosen to recruit nursing home residents.
hH%@8'1v Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology (2000) 28, 77–82
Z:5e:M Original Article
zU]95I Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia
,zO!`|I Catherine A McCarty PhD, MPH, Mukesh B Nanjan PhD, Hugh R Taylor MD
3PPN_Z Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
]M#_o] n Correspondence: Dr Cathy McCarty MPH, Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, 32 Gisborne Street, East Melbourne,
yy G:Kl Victoria 3002, Australia. Email:
cathy@cera.unimelb.edu.au OTSbhI'v 78 McCarty et al.
|s=)*DZv Finally, four pairs of census collector districts in four rural
]Z6==+mCP Victorian communities were randomly selected to recruit rural
%i$]S`A} residents. A household census was conducted to identify
bfhap(F~(e eligible residents aged 40 years and over who had been a
fpu^ resident at that address for at least 6 months. At the time of
UhXZ^k3 the household census, basic information about age, sex,
?o?~Df& country of birth, language spoken at home, education, use of
Y2HF corrective spectacles and use of eye care services was collected.
Jwgd9a5 Eligible residents were then invited to attend a local
} U\n:@:2B examination site for a more detailed interview and examination.
#[ipJ % The study protocol was approved by the Royal Victorian
)w=ehjV^m Eye and Ear Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee.
.Xqe]cax% Assessment of cataract
GB&<+5t2 A standardized ophthalmic examination was performed after
-YPUrU[) pupil dilatation with one drop of 10% phenylephrine
7&-B6Y4 hydrochloride. Lens opacities were graded clinically at the
;%{REa time of the examination and subsequently from photos using
Db3#; the Wilmer cataract photo-grading system.12 Cortical and
C5"=%v[gQv posterior subcapsular (PSC) opacities were assessed on
xJlf}LEyF retroillumination and measured as the proportion (in 1/16)
_=S4H of pupil circumference occupied by opacity. For this analysis,
_[SW8 9zk cortical cataract was defined as 4/16 or greater opacity,
{$5?[KD PSC cataract was defined as opacity equal to or greater than
cdY|z]B 1 mm2 and nuclear cataract was defined as opacity equal to
FX}kH ] or greater than Wilmer standard 2,12 independent of visual
rlV:%
k acuity. Examples of the minimum opacities defined as cortical,
EVYICR 5g nuclear and PSC cataract are presented in Figure 1.
tX)l_?jVH Bilateral congenital cataracts or cataracts secondary to
u]RI,3Z intraocular inflammation or trauma were excluded from the
AYb-BaIc analysis. Two cases of bilateral secondary cataract and eight
T8'm{[C cases of bilateral congenital cataract were excluded from the
^V,?n@c! analyses.
oU"!"t A Topcon® SL5 photo slit-lamp (Topcon America Corp.,
>JVdL\3 Paramus, NJ, USA) with a 0.1 mm slit beam of 9.0 mm in
!79eF) height set to an incident angle of 30° was used for examinations.
b%A+k"d Ektachrome® 200 ASA colour slide film (Eastman
}3HN$Fwo Kodak Company, Rochester, NY, USA) was used to photograph
.! 'SG6 q the nuclear opacities. The cortical opacities were
VO
u/9]a photographed with an Oxford® retroillumination camera
Q> d<4]` (Marcher Enterprises Ltd, Hereford, UK) and T-MAX® 400
|tn.ZEgw3~ film (Eastman Kodak). Photographs were graded separately
X?f\j"v by two research assistants and discrepancies were adjudicated
; ,9:1.L by an independent reviewer. Any discrepancies
s]X0}
"cz between the clinical grades and the photograph grades were
HAKB@h) resolved. Except in cases where photographs were missing,
j; TXZ`|( the photograph grades were used in the analyses. Photograph
W*.j=?)\[ grades were available for 4301 (84%) for cortical
G1tua"Px cataract, 4147 (81%) for nuclear cataract and 4303 (84%)
"Sb<"$: for PSC cataract. Cataract status was classified according to
y\?NB:=% the severity of the opacity in the worse eye.
IEmjWw4 Assessment of risk factors
aWS_z6[t#6 A standardized questionnaire was used to obtain information
i U"2uLgb about education, employment and ethnic background.11
W6^YFN Specific information was elicited on the occurrence, duration
yt+d
f0l and treatment of a number of medical conditions,
u;G-46 including ocular trauma, arthritis, diabetes, gout, hypertension
y?P4EVknM3 and mental illness. Information about the use, dose and
,II-:&H duration of tobacco, alcohol, analgesics and steriods were
taBCE?{ collected, and a food frequency questionnaire was used to
WJU[+|J determine current consumption of dietary sources of antioxidants
IRG -H!FV and use of vitamin supplements.
iy-~CPNB_ Data management and statistical analysis
[cso$T
v Data were collected either by direct computer entry with a
wNm 1H[{ questionnaire programmed in Paradox© (Carel Corporation,
Xn6'*u>+;[ Ottawa, Canada) with internal consistency checks, or
wX+KW0|> on self-coding forms. Open-ended responses were coded at
>(He,o@M a later time. Data that were entered on the self-coded forms
l1
UN.l'p were entered into a computer with double data entry and
}cO}H2m reconciliation of any inconsistencies. Data range and consistency
68QA%m'J checks were performed on the entire data set.
\5DOp-2 SAS© version 6.1 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina) was
vYNu=vnM employed for statistical analyses.
.azA1@V| Ninety-five per cent confidence limits around the agespecific
,V`[;~49 rates were calculated according to Cochran13 to
? t_$C,A+ account for the effect of the cluster sampling. Ninety-five
eh /QFm
4 per cent confidence limits around age-standardized rates
}J+\o~ were calculated according to Breslow and Day.14 The strataspecific
oGKk2oP
data were weighted according to the 1996
-p*j9
z Australian Bureau of Statistics census data15 to reflect the
$.KDnl^ cataract prevalence in the entire Victorian population.
_i pY; Univariate analyses with Student’s t-tests and chi-squared
?TMrnR/d tests were first employed to evaluate risk factors for unoperated
h
e1= cataract. Any factors with P < 0.10 were then fitted
eUEO~M2&U{ into a backwards stepwise logistic regression model. For the
;oivG)hJl Figure 1. Minimum levels of cortical (a), nuclear (b), and posterior subcapsular (c) cataract.
U}:e-
final multivariate models, P < 0.05 was considered statistically
E3
d# T significant. Design effect was assessed through the use
R
d:wMy$ of cluster-specific models and multivariate models. The
^nN@@\-5 design effect was assumed to be additive and an adjustment
@f%q ,: made in the variance by adding the variance associated with
M&ec%<lM the design effect prior to constructing the 95% confidence
Y N*"q'Yz_ limits.
s^>1rV]=(` RESULTS
m$H(l4wB> Study population
R6E.C!EI A total of 3271 (83%) of the Melbourne residents, 403
"2>_eZ#b (90%) Melbourne nursing home residents, and 1473 (92%)
%Kc 2n9W rural residents participated. In general, non-participants did
~]C m
not differ from participants.16 The study population was
3fhlMOm representative of the Victorian population and Australia as
7!jbID~
a whole.
rF)[ Sed:T The Melbourne residents ranged in age from 40 to
kdp- |9 98 years (mean = 59) and 1511 (46%) were male. The
&pEr;:E Melbourne nursing home residents ranged in age from 46 to
HN~ 101 years (mean = 82) and 85 (21%) were men. The rural
5|Hz$oU
residents ranged in age from 40 to 103 years (mean = 60)
/p7-D; and 701 (47.5%) were men.
WN9K*Tt~o& Prevalence of cataract and prior cataract surgery
{n-6e[ As would be expected, the rate of any cataract increases
Hl b%/& dramatically with age (Table 1). The weighted rate of any
jyFXAs2 cataract in Victoria was 21.5% (95% CL 18.1, 24.9).
1jkMje Although the rates varied somewhat between the three
(^;Fyf/ strata, they were not significantly different as the 95% confidence
CI~ll=9` limits overlapped. The per cent of cataractous eyes
#b5V/)K with best-corrected visual acuity of less than 6/12 was 12.5%
U]W+ers (65/520) for cortical cataract, 18% for nuclear cataract
7FvtWE* (97/534) and 14.4% (27/187) for PSC cataract. Cataract
TYN~c( surgery also rose dramatically with age. The overall
#t?tt,nc} weighted rate of prior cataract surgery in Victoria was
3PgiV%] 3.79% (95% CL 2.97, 4.60) (Table 2).
-9> oB Risk factors for unoperated cataract
9~6)u=4sS" Cases of cataract that had not been removed were classified
*g~\lFX,u as unoperated cataract. Risk factor analyses for unoperated
\'.#of cataract were not performed with the nursing home residents
^L
+@oS as information about risk factor exposure was not
+ht{ARX2( available for this cohort. The following factors were assessed
CF_pIfbaf in relation to unoperated cataract: age, sex, residence
/
+9o?Kxya (urban/rural), language spoken at home (a measure of ethnic
\g<=n&S? integration), country of birth, parents’ country of birth (a
L-QzC<[F/ measure of ethnicity), years since migration, education, use
>YuiCf?c7 of ophthalmic services, use of optometric services, private
6|AD]/t^K health insurance status, duration of distance glasses use,
YN
V4' glaucoma, age-related maculopathy and employment status.
iw)^;8q In this cross sectional study it was not possible to assess the
M
PI=^rc2 level of visual acuity that would predict a patient’s having
'I8K1Q=/ cataract surgery, as visual acuity data prior to cataract
Ihn+_Hu surgery were not available.
/swNhDQ"o The significant risk factors for unoperated cataract in univariate
u[;,~eB%w analyses were related to: whether a participant had
~qj09 ever seen an optometrist, seen an ophthalmologist or been
H(WRm1i"G diagnosed with glaucoma; and participants’ employment
z-X_O32 status (currently employed) and age. These significant
`7mRUDz factors were placed in a backwards stepwise logistic regression
<JNiW8 PG model. The factors that remained significantly related
/
Hg/) to unoperated cataract were whether participants had ever
MzudCMF seen an ophthalmologist, seen an optometrist and been
\8e27#PJR diagnosed with glaucoma. None of the demographic factors
@f z!]/ were associated with unoperated cataract in the multivariate
s%c>Ge model.
7\xGMC
ctM The per cent of participants with unoperated cataract
.vJlTg who said that they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with
!CO1I-yL Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia 79
i`hr'}x Table 1. Prevalence of any cataracta (excluding previous cataract surgery) by age, gender and cohort
UB
Z37P Age group Sex Urban Rural Nursing home Weighted total
2MQ
XtK (years) (%) (%) (%)
*eLKD_D`!C 40–49 Male 2.56 4.04 0.00 3.00 (1.91, 4.08)
t6JM% Female 2.61 1.70 0.00 2.36 (1.61, 3.10)
jqeR{yo&0b 50–59 Male 7.69 6.94 0.00 7.47 (5.80, 9.15)
ooW; s<6 Female 6.67 7.56 0.00 6.92 (5.60, 8.24)
UG5AFZ\ 60–69 Male 20.7 25.0 10.0 22.0 (18.1, 26.0)
QO&{Jx.^[ Female 27.9 35.7 37.5 30.3 (26.0, 34.7)
V@C8HTg
70–79 Male 43.1 58.7 39.1 48.1 (41.2, 55.1)
^/V>^9CZ Female 58.6 66.2 55.6 61.0 (56.0, 65.9)
bCbp JZ 80–89 Male 74.0 89.3 92.0 79.3 (72.3, 86.3)
9>I&Z8J$M Female 91.9 97.0 80.2 92.6 (86.4, 98.8)
7kDqgod^A 90 + Male 100.0 100.0 75.0 98.8 (96.2, 100.0)
)A1u uW ( Female 100.0 100.0 93.8 98.6 (97.0, 100.0)
Wp2$L-T&$ Age-standardized
`k]2*$% (95% CL) Combined 19.7 (16.3, 23.1) 23.2 (16.1, 30.2) 16.5 (2.06, 30.9) 21.5 (18.1, 25.0)
&h<\jqN/ aCortical > 4/16, nuclear > standard 2, posterior subcapsular > 1 mm2
\fD)| their current vision was 30% (290/683), compared with 27%
BJNZH# " (26/95) of participants with prior cataract surgery (chisquared,
JOUZ"^v 1 d.f. = 0.25, P = 0.62).
`$oy4lDKQ Outcomes of cataract surgery
m*f"Y"B.1I Two hundred and forty-nine eyes had undergone prior
JV`"kk/ cataract surgery. Of these 249 operated eyes, 49 (20%) were
pg9feIW1 left aphakic, 6 (2.4%) had anterior chamber intraocular
lh`ZEvt lenses and 194 (78%) had posterior chamber intraocular
ZR8%h< lenses. The rate of capsulotomy in the eyes with intact
]]^r)&pox posterior capsules was 36% (73/202). Fifteen per cent of
_fM=J+ eyes (17/114) with a clear posterior capsule had bestcorrected
o#\c:D*k visual acuity of less than 6/12 compared with 43%
3\2^LILLO of eyes (6/14) with opaque capsules, and 15% of eyes
k@
So l6 (11/73) with prior capsulotomies (chi-squared, 2 d.f. = 7.21,
TR&7AiqB P = 0.027).
%$6?em_ The percentage of eyes with best-corrected visual acuity
ZU68\cL of 6/12 or better was 96% (302/314) for eyes without
7:'5q]9 cataract, 88% (1417/1609) for eyes with prevalent cataract
:2*0Jh3_ and 85% (211/249) for eyes with operated cataract (chisquared,
P/,ezVb
= 2 d.f. = 22.3), P < 0.001). Twenty-seven of the
oEJxey]B7 operated eyes (11%) had visual acuities of less than 6/18
=:
=s (moderate vision impairment) (Fig. 2). A cause of this
XE
S$V15 moderate visual impairment (but not the only cause) in four
q"-+`;^7(- (15%) eyes was secondary to cataract surgery. Three of these
orZwm9#]. four eyes had undergone intracapsular cataract extraction
_+ERX[i and the fourth eye had an opaque posterior capsule. No one
?.g="{5X had bilateral vision impairment as a result of their cataract
(gEz<}Av. surgery.
f3SAK!V+s DISCUSSION
4bq+(CI6 To our knowledge, this is the first paper to systematically
*t bgIW+h assess the prevalence of current cataract, previous cataract
"Z#MR`;&29 surgery, predictors of unoperated cataract and the outcomes
p]Q(Z of cataract surgery in a population-based sample. The Visual
=
zRjb> Impairment Project is unique in that the sampling frame and
1>)uI@?Rb high response rate have ensured that the study population is
^:2>I $ representative of Australians aged 40 years and over. Therefore,
]D@y""{--s these data can be used to plan age-related cataract
6#Bg99c services throughout Australia.
IFkU8EK&B We found the rate of any cataract in those over the age
=`t%p1 of 40 years to be 22%. Although relatively high, this rate is
) %bY2
pk significantly less than was reported in a number of previous
xz){RkVzP studies,2,4,6 with the exception of the Casteldaccia Eye
mU;\,96# Study.5 However, it is difficult to compare rates of cataract
2l}3L between studies because of different methodologies and
EoOw
u-{ cataract definitions employed in the various studies, as well
WO+_|*& as the different age structures of the study populations.
Jm3iYR+, Other studies have used less conservative definitions of
.]BJM?9 cataract, thus leading to higher rates of cataract as defined.
jEW@~e In most large epidemiologic studies of cataract, visual acuity
q&V=A[<rz has not been included in the definition of cataract.
L7B(abT9e Therefore, the prevalence of cataract may not reflect the
9 [wR/8Xm actual need for cataract surgery in the community.
!;.
nL-NQ 80 McCarty et al.
$qk(yzY Table 2. Prevalence of previous cataract by age, gender and cohort
oT[8Iu Age group Gender Urban Rural Nursing home Weighted total
_.BX#BIF (years) (%) (%) (%)
E{E%nXR) 40–49 Male 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.80 (0.00, 1.81)
B#K
2?Et!t Female 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (
y0cB@pWp 50–59 Male 0.68 0.58 0.00 0.65 (0.13, 1.17)
e]u3[ao Female 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.41 (0.00, 1.00)
|d=MX>i|G 60–69 Male 2.12 7.59 0.00 3.80 (1.41, 6.19)
#AUa'qBt Female 2.11 3.51 0.00 2.54 (1.81, 3.26)
Xw<N nvz6 70–79 Male 8.22 9.85 8.70 8.75 (6.38, 11.1)
qY%{c-aMA Female 7.21 7.86 7.02 7.41 (5.36, 9.46)
uNG?`>4> 80–89 Male 25.0 30.0 14.3 26.2 (17.0, 35.4)
Zn"1qLPF Female 27.9 25.6 18.3 26.7 (20.2, 33.3)
e X q}0-*f 90 + Male 0.00 16.7 66.7 9.19 (0.00, 21.5)
Dv[ 35[Yh Female 58.3 100.0 26.9 63.1 (44.4, 81.8)
l/@t>% Age-standardized
b+ J) (95% CL) Combined 3.31 (2.70, 3.93) 4.36 (2.67, 6.06) 2.26 (0.82, 3.70) 3.79 (2.97, 4.60)
w65D;9/; Figure 2. Visual acuity in eyes that had undergone cataract
{;XO ' surgery, n = 249. h, Presenting; j, best-corrected.
l]v>PIh~N Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia 81
-%t2_g, The weighted prevalence of prior cataract surgery in the
0s8w)%4$ Visual Impairment Project (3.6%) was similar to the crude
pt+[BF 6P rate in the Beaver Dam Eye Study4 (3.1%), but less than the
2q,> *B? crude rate in the Blue Mountains Eye Study6 (6.0%).
7iBN!"G0 However, the age-standardized rate in the Blue Mountains
9Lv"|S`5W_ Eye Study (standardized to the age distribution of the urban
ESt@%7.F Visual Impairment Project cohort) was found to be less than
Zjx:1c= b the Visual Impairment Project (standardized rate = 1.36%,
v\:P_J 95% CL 1.25, 1.47). The incidence of cataract surgery in
/htM/pR Australia has exceeded population growth.1 This is due,
mh=YrDU+L perhaps, to advances in surgical techniques and lens
8RJ^e[?o( implants that have changed the risk–benefit ratio.
xf
]_@T; The Global Initiative for the Elimination of Avoidable
8e3I@mv Blindness, sponsored by the World Health Organization,
8Cw+<A* states that cataract surgical services should be provided that
v8!Ts" ‘have a high success rate in terms of visual outcome and
#N'W+M / improved quality of life’,17 although the ‘high success rate’ is
N\9Wxz$ not defined. Population- and clinic-based studies conducted
=xq+r]g6 in the United States have demonstrated marked improvement
r1)@ 7Nt in visual acuity following cataract surgery.18–20 We
fyE#8h_>4 found that 85% of eyes that had undergone cataract extraction
O W|5IEC had visual acuity of 6/12 or better. Previously, we have
yhpeP shown that participants with prevalent cataract in this
at-+%e
cohort are more likely to express dissatisfaction with their
`oq][| current vision than participants without cataract or participants
9Oe~e with prior cataract surgery.21 In a national study in the
@ysc?4% q United States, researchers found that the change in patients’
Z.DO 2=+= ratings of their vision difficulties and satisfaction with their
OmR)W' vision after cataract surgery were more highly related to
p2/Pj)2 their change in visual functioning score than to their change
GZwz4=` in visual acuity.19 Furthermore, improvement in visual function
6SGV}dAx has been shown to be associated with improvement in
t.`&Q|a overall quality of life.22
:K)7_]y A recent review found that the incidence of visually
.*(xkJI3 significant posterior capsule opacification following
r$
8^K\oF cataract surgery to be greater than 25%.23 We found 36%
3\B28m capsulotomy in our population and that this was associated
-0>gq$/N=^ with visual acuity similar to that of eyes with a clear
f"}g5eg+ capsule, but significantly better than that of eyes with an
NlG~{rfI opaque capsule.
Ump$N# A number of studies have shown that the demand and
O8Dav^\y? timing of cataract surgery vary according to visual acuity,
7H l>UX,| degree of handicap and socioeconomic factors.8–10,24,25 We
L]kd.JJvy have also shown previously that ophthalmologists are more
wJ%;\06 likely to refer a patient for cataract surgery if the patient is
Z.l4< employed and less likely to refer a nursing home resident.7
9-3, DxZ} In the Visual Impairment Project, we did not find that any
d^(7\lw
| particular subgroup of the population was at greater risk of
l{o,"P" having unoperated cataract. Universal access to health care
!ay:h
Iv in Australia may explain the fact that people without
~9 [O' Medicare are more likely to delay cataract operations in the
u _mtdB' USA,8 but not having private health insurance is not associated
2t[P-on with unoperated cataract in Australia.
ki6Lt In summary, cataract is a significant public health problem
zo|
' in that one in four people in their 80s will have had cataract
4'wbtE| surgery. The importance of age-related cataract surgery will
mfqnRPZ
increase further with the ageing of the population: the
L~+/LV number of people over age 60 years is expected to double in
@u @~gEt the next 20 years. Cataract surgery services are well
d@XXqCR< accessed by the Victorian population and the visual outcomes
Fd86P.Df of cataract surgery have been shown to be very good.
{ MV,>T_ These data can be used to plan for age-related cataract
Kcvst
C` surgical services in Australia in the future as the need for
AxtmG\o> cataract extractions increases.
7 'q *(v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
2{Y~jYt{h The Visual Impairment Project was funded in part by grants
m{;j
r< from the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, the
-|GKtZ]} National Health and Medical Research Council, the Ansell
RY
.@_{ Ophthalmology Foundation, the Dorothy Edols Estate and
I`f5)iF?0 the Jack Brockhoff Foundation. Dr McCarty is the recipient
GEK7q< of a Wagstaff Fellowship in Ophthalmology from the Royal
ZZn$N- Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital.
c'.XC} REFERENCES
L^jjf8_ 1. Keeffe JE, Taylor HR. Cataract surgery in Australia 1985–94.
%s! |,Cu Aust. N.Z. J. Ophthalmol. 1996; 24: 313–17.
e }Mf 2. Sperduto RD, Hiller R. The prevalence of nuclear, cortical,
C-@[= and posterior subcapsular lens opacities in a general population
oY4^CGk= sample. Ophthalmology 1984; 91: 815–18.
>UQY3C 3. Maraini G, Pasquini P, Sperduto RD et al. Distribution of lens
Mg~4) DW] opacities in the Italian-American case–control study of agerelated
g/FZ?Wo cataract. Ophthalmology 1990; 97: 752–6.
VsJiE0'% 4. Klein BEK, Klein R, Linton KLP. Prevalence of age-related
5Xf]j=_ lens opacities in a population. The Beaver Dam Eye Study.
QC?~$>h!? Ophthalmology 1992; 99: 546–52.
f14^VTzP/# 5. Guiffrè G, Giammanco R, Di Pace F, Ponte F. Casteldaccia eye
/5<= m: study: prevalence of cataract in the adult and elderly population
1uO2I&B of a Mediterranean town. Int. Ophthalmol. 1995; 18:
DXo]O}VF 363–71.
hrm<!uKn 6. Mitchell P, Cumming RG, Attebo K, Panchapakesan J.
qJag>OY Prevalence of cataract in Australia. The Blue Mountains Eye
ME$J42 Study. Ophthalmology 1997; 104: 581–8.
drMMf[ 7. Keeffe JE, McCarty CA, Chang WP, Steinberg EP, Taylor HR.
@0'U
p Relative importance of VA, patient concern and patient
9b/Dswxjx lifestyle on referral for cataract surgery. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis.
Q6W![571; Sci. 1996; 37: S183.
{#ynN`tLyF 8. Curbow B, Legro MW, Brenner MH. The influence of patientrelated
+SR{FF variables in the timing of cataract extraction. Am. J.
|mP};&b Ophthalmol. 1993; 115: 614–22.
V^,eW! 9. Sletteberg OH, Høvding G, Bertelsen T. Do we operate too
+U1
Ir5Lx many cataracts? The referred cataract patients’ own appraisal
j)2I+[aoB of their need for surgery. Acta Ophthalmol. Scand. 1995; 73:
qa-FLUkIk! 77–80.
SIV !8mz 10. Escarce JJ. Would eliminating differences in physician practice
KW(a@X style reduce geographic variations in cataract surgery rates?
?+))J~@t Med. Care 1993; 31: 1106–18.
g_1#if& 11. Livingston PM, Carson CA, Stanislavsky YL, Lee SE, Guest
]'`E CS, Taylor HR. Methods for a population-based study of eye
G0{Z@CvO' disease: the Melbourne Visual Impairment Project. Ophthalmic
:oXSh;\ Epidemiol. 1994; 1: 139–48.
~%8P0AP 12. Taylor HR, West SK. A simple system for the clinical grading
)-26(aNGT of lens opacities. Lens Res. 1988; 5: 175–81.
!JDr58 82 McCarty et al.
Xva(R<W7d< 13. Cochran WG. Sampling Techniques. New York: John Wiley &
g5|~i{"0 Sons, 1977; 249–73.
\y5lYb,*c_ 14. Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical Methods in Cancer Research. Volume
!,$#i II – the Design and Analysis of Cohort Studies. Lyon: International
]*#i_dho7 Agency for Research on Cancer; 1987; 52–61.
=3.dgtH 15. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 1996 Census of Population and
Tb$))O} Housing. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1997.
9h amxi 16. Livingston PM, Lee SE, McCarty CA, Taylor HR. A comparison
lN#j%0MaUo of participants with non-participants in a populationbased
/)6T>/ epidemiologic study: the Melbourne Visual Impairment
:$$~$P Project. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 1997; 4: 73–82.
=mO5~~"W+v 17. Programme for the Prevention of Blindness. Global Initiative for the
c,xdkiy3 Elimination of Avoidable Blindness. Geneva: World Health
UZI:st
Organization, 1997.
]>1Mq,! 18. Applegate WB, Miller ST, Elam JT, Freeman JM, Wood TO,
y:RW:D& Gettlefinger TC. Impact of cataract surgery with lens implantation
xoKK{&J on vision and physical function in elderly patients.
k( :Bl JAMA 1987; 257: 1064–6.
s<zN`&t 19. Steinberg EP, Tielsch JM, Schein OD et al. National Study of
8ttJ\m Cataract Surgery Outcomes. Variation in 4-month postoperative
e,JBz~CK*w outcomes as reflected in multiple outcome measures.
\>6*U r Ophthalmology 1994; 101:1131–41.
~#E&E%sJ 20. Klein BEK, Klein R, Moss SE. Change in visual acuity associated
,<U=
7<NU with cataract surgery. The Beaver Dam Eye Study.
,D;8~llM Ophthalmology 1996; 103: 1727–31.
Zi~. 21. McCarty CA, Keeffe JE, Taylor HR. The need for cataract
K=N&kda surgery: projections based on lens opacity, visual acuity, and
m^QoB personal concern. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1999; 83: 62–5.
C~h#pAh 22. Brenner MH, Curbow B, Javitt JC, Legro MW, Sommer A.
JTKS5r7? Vision change and quality of life in the elderly. Response to
%unn{92) cataract surgery and treatment of other ocular conditions.
=MqEbQn{C3 Arch. Ophthalmol. 1993; 111: 680–5.
-s0SQe{!_ 23. Schaumberg DA, Dana MR, Christen WG, Glynn RJ. A
rN&fFI systematic overview of the incidence of posterior capsule
CH4Nz'X2 opacification. Ophthalmology 1998; 105: 1213–21.
!
v![K 24. Mordue A, Parkin DW, Baxter C, Fawcett G, Stewart M.
?Z{/0X)]| Thresholds for treatment in cataract surgery. J. Public Health
i3)3.WK^ Med. 1994; 16: 393–8.
q]="ek&_ 25. Norregaard JC, Bernth-Peterson P, Alonso J et al. Variations in
Z?eTjkNS# indications for cataract surgery in the United States, Denmark,
"q?(rx; Canada, and Spain: results from the International Cataract
dEDhdF#f Surgery Outcomes Study. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1998; 82: 1107–11.