ABSTRACT
[B3RfCV{ Purpose: To quantify the prevalence of cataract, the outcomes
)}vl\7= of cataract surgery and the factors related to
D'4\*4is unoperated cataract in Australia.
qP;OaM
CX Methods: Participants were recruited from the Visual
P2Y^d#jO Impairment Project: a cluster, stratified sample of more than
R-Sym8c 5000 Victorians aged 40 years and over. At examination
8Y?;x} sites interviews, clinical examinations and lens photography
L(\cH b9` were performed. Cataract was defined in participants who
Mi
hg: had: had previous cataract surgery, cortical cataract greater
:EyD+!LJ than 4/16, nuclear greater than Wilmer standard 2, or
p[cX O= posterior subcapsular greater than 1 mm2.
05[SC}MCA Results: The participant group comprised 3271 Melbourne
?Ob3tUz2 residents, 403 Melbourne nursing home residents and 1473
W!<U85-#S rural residents.The weighted rate of any cataract in Victoria
n`KY9[0
U= was 21.5%. The overall weighted rate of prior cataract
_4f;<FL surgery was 3.79%. Two hundred and forty-nine eyes had
9FX-1,Jx had prior cataract surgery. Of these 249 procedures, 49
svSVG:48 (20%) were aphakic, 6 (2.4%) had anterior chamber
gFh*eC o
intraocular lenses and 194 (78%) had posterior chamber
cnLro intraocular lenses.Two hundred and eleven of these operated
cNH7C"@GVu eyes (85%) had best-corrected visual acuity of 6/12 or
liSmjsk better, the legal requirement for a driver’s license.Twentyseven
1Z;iV<d (11%) had visual acuity of less than 6/18 (moderate
YzWz| vision impairment). Complications of cataract surgery
P* o9a caused reduced vision in four of the 27 eyes (15%), or 1.9%
5X+A"X
;C of operated eyes. Three of these four eyes had undergone
rs.)CMk53 intracapsular cataract extraction and the fourth eye had an
cu6Opq9 opaque posterior capsule. No one had bilateral vision
/E>e"tvss impairment as a result of cataract surgery. Surprisingly, no
j@9T.P1 particular demographic factors (such as age, gender, rural
_g.{MTQ residence, occupation, employment status, health insurance
;bG>ZqJCVA status, ethnicity) were related to the presence of unoperated
"]dI1 g_ cataract.
4Up/p&1@ Conclusions: Although the overall prevalence of cataract is
&NWEqBz*2 quite high, no particular subgroup is systematically underserviced
g){<y~Mk in terms of cataract surgery. Overall, the results of
ys~x$ cataract surgery are very good, with the majority of eyes
HDLk>_N_s, achieving driving vision following cataract extraction.
'%D7C=;^ Key words: cataract extraction, health planning, health
/ +\9S services accessibility, prevalence
q7!{?\T% INTRODUCTION
Qd-A.{[h Cataract is the leading cause of blindness worldwide and, in
Y}/-C3) Australia, cataract extractions account for the majority of all
:
'c&,oLY ophthalmic procedures.1 Over the period 1985–94, the rate
G#CXs:1pd+ of cataract surgery in Australia was twice as high as would be
q@&6#B expected from the growth in the elderly population.1
p[-O( 3Y Although there have been a number of studies reporting
O}P`P'Y|' the prevalence of cataract in various populations,2–6 there is
,>M[@4`,U little information about determinants of cataract surgery in
yr
6V3],Tp the population. A previous survey of Australian ophthalmologists
nEfK53i_
showed that patient concern and lifestyle, rather
%RVZD#
zr than visual acuity itself, are the primary factors for referral
)7d&NE_ for cataract surgery.7 This supports prior research which has
iwq!w6+ shown that visual acuity is not a strong predictor of need for
:U\tv[
cataract surgery.8,9 Elsewhere, socioeconomic status has
@,}UWU been shown to be related to cataract surgery rates.10
!<oe=)Iz| To appropriately plan health care services, information is
;
KA~Z5x; needed about the prevalence of age-related cataract in the
Fs{*XKv&lH community as well as the factors associated with cataract
*_e3 @g surgery. The purpose of this study is to quantify the prevalence
q| 7( of any cataract in Australia, to describe the factors
,I9bNO,%JK related to unoperated cataract in the community and to
lFkR=!?= describe the visual outcomes of cataract surgery.
CAlCDfKW} METHODS
vIvIfE Study population
YQ}o?Q$z Details about the study methodology for the Visual
}qUX=s
GG Impairment Project have been published previously.11
TrNF=x> Briefly, cluster sampling within three strata was employed to
~~.}ah/_d recruit subjects aged 40 years and over to participate.
_GPe<H Within the Melbourne Statistical Division, nine pairs of
FwK]$4* census collector districts were randomly selected. Fourteen
rjP/l6
~' nursing homes within a 5 km radius of these nine test sites
y}
'@R$ were randomly chosen to recruit nursing home residents.
DD
Z@$L! Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology (2000) 28, 77–82
t-AmX)$ Original Article
?M2J wAK5 Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia
6Zo}(^Ovz Catherine A McCarty PhD, MPH, Mukesh B Nanjan PhD, Hugh R Taylor MD
/
1RpM]d Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
YUb_y^B^ n Correspondence: Dr Cathy McCarty MPH, Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, 32 Gisborne Street, East Melbourne,
;a/E42eN; Victoria 3002, Australia. Email:
cathy@cera.unimelb.edu.au f<_Cq<q" 78 McCarty et al.
Ef\-VKh Finally, four pairs of census collector districts in four rural
s~>}a Victorian communities were randomly selected to recruit rural
# _1`)VS residents. A household census was conducted to identify
,uvRi)O>a eligible residents aged 40 years and over who had been a
do_[& resident at that address for at least 6 months. At the time of
=]t| ];c% the household census, basic information about age, sex,
gR**@t=;j country of birth, language spoken at home, education, use of
+vH4MwG$.& corrective spectacles and use of eye care services was collected.
Gt1U!dP Eligible residents were then invited to attend a local
1\Xw3prH
examination site for a more detailed interview and examination.
Z;i:]( The study protocol was approved by the Royal Victorian
sK{e*[I>W Eye and Ear Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee.
Q8NX)R Assessment of cataract
bOB\--:] A standardized ophthalmic examination was performed after
do%&m]#; pupil dilatation with one drop of 10% phenylephrine
\RiP
hydrochloride. Lens opacities were graded clinically at the
vdZW%-A&\ time of the examination and subsequently from photos using
3F3A%C% the Wilmer cataract photo-grading system.12 Cortical and
b-DvW4B posterior subcapsular (PSC) opacities were assessed on
\G[$:nS retroillumination and measured as the proportion (in 1/16)
H)?z
#x of pupil circumference occupied by opacity. For this analysis,
/(cPfZZ cortical cataract was defined as 4/16 or greater opacity,
.]u/O`c] PSC cataract was defined as opacity equal to or greater than
$X6h|?3U, 1 mm2 and nuclear cataract was defined as opacity equal to
tc! #wd+u or greater than Wilmer standard 2,12 independent of visual
-~1~I
e2 acuity. Examples of the minimum opacities defined as cortical,
| (93gJ nuclear and PSC cataract are presented in Figure 1.
6N4~~O Bilateral congenital cataracts or cataracts secondary to
"[J^YKoF intraocular inflammation or trauma were excluded from the
#] QZ analysis. Two cases of bilateral secondary cataract and eight
[~HN<>L@C cases of bilateral congenital cataract were excluded from the
3u=g6W2 F analyses.
M >u_4AY A Topcon® SL5 photo slit-lamp (Topcon America Corp.,
T[gv0|+ Paramus, NJ, USA) with a 0.1 mm slit beam of 9.0 mm in
}tz7b# height set to an incident angle of 30° was used for examinations.
ueudRb Ektachrome® 200 ASA colour slide film (Eastman
$i&zex{\ Kodak Company, Rochester, NY, USA) was used to photograph
z_HdISy0 the nuclear opacities. The cortical opacities were
1#x0 q:6 photographed with an Oxford® retroillumination camera
mt
.sucT (Marcher Enterprises Ltd, Hereford, UK) and T-MAX® 400
Psf#c:*_
) film (Eastman Kodak). Photographs were graded separately
s<Ziegmw|g by two research assistants and discrepancies were adjudicated
LoV<:|GTI by an independent reviewer. Any discrepancies
K0~rN.C!0 between the clinical grades and the photograph grades were
zPO9!?7| resolved. Except in cases where photographs were missing,
TOt dUO the photograph grades were used in the analyses. Photograph
By|4m grades were available for 4301 (84%) for cortical
l#o
~W` cataract, 4147 (81%) for nuclear cataract and 4303 (84%)
/:
"1Z]@ for PSC cataract. Cataract status was classified according to
dd;~K&_Q/i the severity of the opacity in the worse eye.
o&%g8=
n% Assessment of risk factors
?`s8 pPc4 A standardized questionnaire was used to obtain information
_>+Ld6.T6 about education, employment and ethnic background.11
CJY$G}rk Specific information was elicited on the occurrence, duration
jcOcWB| and treatment of a number of medical conditions,
Hl"N} including ocular trauma, arthritis, diabetes, gout, hypertension
Y2AJ+
| and mental illness. Information about the use, dose and
SUiOJ[5, duration of tobacco, alcohol, analgesics and steriods were
j#|ZP-=1_ collected, and a food frequency questionnaire was used to
9[4xFE?| determine current consumption of dietary sources of antioxidants
Q
,g\ and use of vitamin supplements.
?uu*L6 Data management and statistical analysis
Nn6%9PX_) Data were collected either by direct computer entry with a
:#Wd~~d questionnaire programmed in Paradox© (Carel Corporation,
[agMfn Ottawa, Canada) with internal consistency checks, or
4#D,?eA7 on self-coding forms. Open-ended responses were coded at
_a, s
) a later time. Data that were entered on the self-coded forms
yi[x}ffdE were entered into a computer with double data entry and
wYea\^co reconciliation of any inconsistencies. Data range and consistency
8*X4\3:*N checks were performed on the entire data set.
*. t^MP SAS© version 6.1 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina) was
0-gAyiKx? employed for statistical analyses.
}>
\C{ClI Ninety-five per cent confidence limits around the agespecific
3]hWfj1m2 rates were calculated according to Cochran13 to
?6!LL5a. account for the effect of the cluster sampling. Ninety-five
+`4A$#$+y per cent confidence limits around age-standardized rates
4+n\k were calculated according to Breslow and Day.14 The strataspecific
(FV >m data were weighted according to the 1996
hH.G#-JO Australian Bureau of Statistics census data15 to reflect the
f);FoVa6 cataract prevalence in the entire Victorian population.
+ZYn? #IQ Univariate analyses with Student’s t-tests and chi-squared
qs6aB0ln tests were first employed to evaluate risk factors for unoperated
9WHddDA cataract. Any factors with P < 0.10 were then fitted
K3C <{#r into a backwards stepwise logistic regression model. For the
al0L&z\ Figure 1. Minimum levels of cortical (a), nuclear (b), and posterior subcapsular (c) cataract.
_F{C\} final multivariate models, P < 0.05 was considered statistically
=N@t'fOr significant. Design effect was assessed through the use
*hrd5na of cluster-specific models and multivariate models. The
L];b<*d design effect was assumed to be additive and an adjustment
%y@AA>x! made in the variance by adding the variance associated with
'qi}|I the design effect prior to constructing the 95% confidence
9Flb|G% limits.
eyaNs{TV RESULTS
|qLh5Ty Study population
dx]>(e@(t{ A total of 3271 (83%) of the Melbourne residents, 403
|{;G2G1[ (90%) Melbourne nursing home residents, and 1473 (92%)
SuznN
L=/$ rural residents participated. In general, non-participants did
j pOp. not differ from participants.16 The study population was
Bx!-"e representative of the Victorian population and Australia as
b-y a whole.
5xde; The Melbourne residents ranged in age from 40 to
BV
m0{*-[| 98 years (mean = 59) and 1511 (46%) were male. The
_wcNgFx Melbourne nursing home residents ranged in age from 46 to
!W0v >p 101 years (mean = 82) and 85 (21%) were men. The rural
Bt#N4m[X*| residents ranged in age from 40 to 103 years (mean = 60)
Qd6F H2Pl and 701 (47.5%) were men.
]k(]qZ Prevalence of cataract and prior cataract surgery
':W[ A As would be expected, the rate of any cataract increases
P4?glh q# dramatically with age (Table 1). The weighted rate of any
BHw, 4#F1; cataract in Victoria was 21.5% (95% CL 18.1, 24.9).
F
/Pep?' Although the rates varied somewhat between the three
1}37Q&2 strata, they were not significantly different as the 95% confidence
6RM/GM limits overlapped. The per cent of cataractous eyes
X.V~SeS with best-corrected visual acuity of less than 6/12 was 12.5%
-hV*EPQ/ (65/520) for cortical cataract, 18% for nuclear cataract
Ah<+y\C (97/534) and 14.4% (27/187) for PSC cataract. Cataract
K#xvu1U surgery also rose dramatically with age. The overall
:
jx4{V weighted rate of prior cataract surgery in Victoria was
iUwzs&frd 3.79% (95% CL 2.97, 4.60) (Table 2).
w*!aZ,P Risk factors for unoperated cataract
!
+ njS Cases of cataract that had not been removed were classified
e%6QTg5# as unoperated cataract. Risk factor analyses for unoperated
6Iw\c cataract were not performed with the nursing home residents
BC]?0 U as information about risk factor exposure was not
7rPF$ \# available for this cohort. The following factors were assessed
aP`P)3O6)1 in relation to unoperated cataract: age, sex, residence
qa6,z.mQ (urban/rural), language spoken at home (a measure of ethnic
)jC%a6G! integration), country of birth, parents’ country of birth (a
|%v^W 3 measure of ethnicity), years since migration, education, use
mqJ_W[y7 of ophthalmic services, use of optometric services, private
&/b~k3{M_ health insurance status, duration of distance glasses use,
80;(Gt@<" glaucoma, age-related maculopathy and employment status.
Jo}eeJ;k In this cross sectional study it was not possible to assess the
XUw/2"D'? level of visual acuity that would predict a patient’s having
c(%|: P^ cataract surgery, as visual acuity data prior to cataract
Q,9oKg surgery were not available.
L-\GHu~) The significant risk factors for unoperated cataract in univariate
l(q ,<[O analyses were related to: whether a participant had
CP{cAzHO ever seen an optometrist, seen an ophthalmologist or been
g ci diagnosed with glaucoma; and participants’ employment
N[yy M'C status (currently employed) and age. These significant
KdlQ!5(?X factors were placed in a backwards stepwise logistic regression
T^v}mWCZ model. The factors that remained significantly related
xvy.=( to unoperated cataract were whether participants had ever
@K]|K]cby seen an ophthalmologist, seen an optometrist and been
p^_yU_ diagnosed with glaucoma. None of the demographic factors
@R
6@]Dm were associated with unoperated cataract in the multivariate
"Pf~iwfw model.
&M'*6A The per cent of participants with unoperated cataract
`p7=t)5k who said that they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with
4H-'Dr=G Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia 79
iyp=lLk Table 1. Prevalence of any cataracta (excluding previous cataract surgery) by age, gender and cohort
ukY"+& Age group Sex Urban Rural Nursing home Weighted total
(khL-F (years) (%) (%) (%)
F3N6{ysK# 40–49 Male 2.56 4.04 0.00 3.00 (1.91, 4.08)
|&[EZ+[ Female 2.61 1.70 0.00 2.36 (1.61, 3.10)
69 o7EA 50–59 Male 7.69 6.94 0.00 7.47 (5.80, 9.15)
6(e>P) Female 6.67 7.56 0.00 6.92 (5.60, 8.24)
i@BtM9:
60–69 Male 20.7 25.0 10.0 22.0 (18.1, 26.0)
xRsWI!d+| Female 27.9 35.7 37.5 30.3 (26.0, 34.7)
TW>WHCAm 70–79 Male 43.1 58.7 39.1 48.1 (41.2, 55.1)
-Vhw^T1iV Female 58.6 66.2 55.6 61.0 (56.0, 65.9)
N"y)Oca{ 80–89 Male 74.0 89.3 92.0 79.3 (72.3, 86.3)
4NIRmDEd Female 91.9 97.0 80.2 92.6 (86.4, 98.8)
Y]5l.SV 90 + Male 100.0 100.0 75.0 98.8 (96.2, 100.0)
0<B$#8 Female 100.0 100.0 93.8 98.6 (97.0, 100.0)
i@R
1/M Age-standardized
:Xd<74Nu (95% CL) Combined 19.7 (16.3, 23.1) 23.2 (16.1, 30.2) 16.5 (2.06, 30.9) 21.5 (18.1, 25.0)
AnvRxb.e aCortical > 4/16, nuclear > standard 2, posterior subcapsular > 1 mm2
f>Jr|#k their current vision was 30% (290/683), compared with 27%
N{~YJ$!8 (26/95) of participants with prior cataract surgery (chisquared,
9RI-Lq` 1 d.f. = 0.25, P = 0.62).
<V6VMYXY4 Outcomes of cataract surgery
B !=F2 Two hundred and forty-nine eyes had undergone prior
Vl!6W@g cataract surgery. Of these 249 operated eyes, 49 (20%) were
@k/NY*+ left aphakic, 6 (2.4%) had anterior chamber intraocular
AZ}Xj>= lenses and 194 (78%) had posterior chamber intraocular
ohGfp9H lenses. The rate of capsulotomy in the eyes with intact
-8rjgB~."/ posterior capsules was 36% (73/202). Fifteen per cent of
KFkoS0M5| eyes (17/114) with a clear posterior capsule had bestcorrected
!1Cy$}w visual acuity of less than 6/12 compared with 43%
'anG:= of eyes (6/14) with opaque capsules, and 15% of eyes
J{&H+rd (11/73) with prior capsulotomies (chi-squared, 2 d.f. = 7.21,
=6|&Jt P = 0.027).
w~?~g<q The percentage of eyes with best-corrected visual acuity
q,U+qt of 6/12 or better was 96% (302/314) for eyes without
VD]zz
^ cataract, 88% (1417/1609) for eyes with prevalent cataract
gH3vk $WS and 85% (211/249) for eyes with operated cataract (chisquared,
\<6CZ 2 d.f. = 22.3), P < 0.001). Twenty-seven of the
}t1a*z operated eyes (11%) had visual acuities of less than 6/18
1&(V (moderate vision impairment) (Fig. 2). A cause of this
3%;a)c;D moderate visual impairment (but not the only cause) in four
'xg
Lt( (15%) eyes was secondary to cataract surgery. Three of these
1!T1Y,w four eyes had undergone intracapsular cataract extraction
@\P;W(m.i and the fourth eye had an opaque posterior capsule. No one
M$8^91%4B had bilateral vision impairment as a result of their cataract
I[
##2 surgery.
e?ly
H DISCUSSION
Ev(>z-{F To our knowledge, this is the first paper to systematically
fG(SNNl+D assess the prevalence of current cataract, previous cataract
Jh[UtYb
5 surgery, predictors of unoperated cataract and the outcomes
*m,k(/> of cataract surgery in a population-based sample. The Visual
?+a,m# Yx Impairment Project is unique in that the sampling frame and
VsE9H]v
high response rate have ensured that the study population is
spPNr representative of Australians aged 40 years and over. Therefore,
`LE6jp3, these data can be used to plan age-related cataract
b4ONh% services throughout Australia.
6@0OQb We found the rate of any cataract in those over the age
I \[_9 of 40 years to be 22%. Although relatively high, this rate is
Z>W g*sZy) significantly less than was reported in a number of previous
364`IC( a studies,2,4,6 with the exception of the Casteldaccia Eye
Qq;Foa
Study.5 However, it is difficult to compare rates of cataract
W_8wed:b between studies because of different methodologies and
EbE-}>7OO cataract definitions employed in the various studies, as well
/M4{Wc as the different age structures of the study populations.
.1Al<OLL Other studies have used less conservative definitions of
Vq?p|wy cataract, thus leading to higher rates of cataract as defined.
O-I[igNl In most large epidemiologic studies of cataract, visual acuity
T<p !5`B 1 has not been included in the definition of cataract.
sN2p76KN Therefore, the prevalence of cataract may not reflect the
S4Ww5G?. actual need for cataract surgery in the community.
o`P%& 80 McCarty et al.
,N[7/kT| Table 2. Prevalence of previous cataract by age, gender and cohort
#32"=MfQn Age group Gender Urban Rural Nursing home Weighted total
@u]rWVy;\[ (years) (%) (%) (%)
SO(NVJh 40–49 Male 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.80 (0.00, 1.81)
p@5`&Em, Female 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (
h=kh@}, 50–59 Male 0.68 0.58 0.00 0.65 (0.13, 1.17)
DB:+E|vSD Female 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.41 (0.00, 1.00)
U4-g^S[ 60–69 Male 2.12 7.59 0.00 3.80 (1.41, 6.19)
*HO}~A%Lx Female 2.11 3.51 0.00 2.54 (1.81, 3.26)
o.G!7 70–79 Male 8.22 9.85 8.70 8.75 (6.38, 11.1)
6%Pdy$ P Female 7.21 7.86 7.02 7.41 (5.36, 9.46)
OJ$]V,Z00x 80–89 Male 25.0 30.0 14.3 26.2 (17.0, 35.4)
Ry K\uv Female 27.9 25.6 18.3 26.7 (20.2, 33.3)
D+z?wuXk
90 + Male 0.00 16.7 66.7 9.19 (0.00, 21.5)
b6F4>@gjg Female 58.3 100.0 26.9 63.1 (44.4, 81.8)
.5,(_
p^ Age-standardized
i9A+gtd (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)
WKIoS"?-F Figure 2. Visual acuity in eyes that had undergone cataract
ul2")HL]; surgery, n = 249. h, Presenting; j, best-corrected.
"4H
+!r} Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia 81
mfo1+owT The weighted prevalence of prior cataract surgery in the
jvFTR'R)= Visual Impairment Project (3.6%) was similar to the crude
?zVL;gVWA rate in the Beaver Dam Eye Study4 (3.1%), but less than the
O
Jzs Q crude rate in the Blue Mountains Eye Study6 (6.0%).
? 1$fJ3 However, the age-standardized rate in the Blue Mountains
@8^[!F Eye Study (standardized to the age distribution of the urban
c|62jY"$-2 Visual Impairment Project cohort) was found to be less than
~-m " the Visual Impairment Project (standardized rate = 1.36%,
)Z
qJh 95% CL 1.25, 1.47). The incidence of cataract surgery in
cwWodPNm Australia has exceeded population growth.1 This is due,
oDYRQozo> perhaps, to advances in surgical techniques and lens
)>-ibf`#? implants that have changed the risk–benefit ratio.
ux3<l +jv^ The Global Initiative for the Elimination of Avoidable
.0O2Qqdg Blindness, sponsored by the World Health Organization,
?Poq2 states that cataract surgical services should be provided that
.j>hI="b ‘have a high success rate in terms of visual outcome and
XWs"jt improved quality of life’,17 although the ‘high success rate’ is
z`FCs,?K not defined. Population- and clinic-based studies conducted
.h5[Q/*h in the United States have demonstrated marked improvement
H0SQ"? in visual acuity following cataract surgery.18–20 We
Y> Wu found that 85% of eyes that had undergone cataract extraction
H
4!+q:< had visual acuity of 6/12 or better. Previously, we have
_}VloiY shown that participants with prevalent cataract in this
i'wAE:Xe cohort are more likely to express dissatisfaction with their
e|D;OM current vision than participants without cataract or participants
2hQ>: with prior cataract surgery.21 In a national study in the
Bv.`R0e& United States, researchers found that the change in patients’
f'{]"^e= ratings of their vision difficulties and satisfaction with their
X2i}vjkY vision after cataract surgery were more highly related to
b2=0}~LK their change in visual functioning score than to their change
"0k8IVwp in visual acuity.19 Furthermore, improvement in visual function
#I3$3^0i# has been shown to be associated with improvement in
( nab overall quality of life.22
.eO?Z^ A recent review found that the incidence of visually
T,OwM\`.X{ significant posterior capsule opacification following
\VFHHi:I cataract surgery to be greater than 25%.23 We found 36%
LW:LFzp capsulotomy in our population and that this was associated
2kUxD8BcN with visual acuity similar to that of eyes with a clear
*d',Vuv&[ capsule, but significantly better than that of eyes with an
G>+1*\c opaque capsule.
r]Ff{la5 A number of studies have shown that the demand and
BiZ=${y
timing of cataract surgery vary according to visual acuity,
I;?X f degree of handicap and socioeconomic factors.8–10,24,25 We
fn/7wO$! have also shown previously that ophthalmologists are more
?}Lg)EFH likely to refer a patient for cataract surgery if the patient is
v^7LctcVm employed and less likely to refer a nursing home resident.7
=?(~aV In the Visual Impairment Project, we did not find that any
UYtuED particular subgroup of the population was at greater risk of
N8`4veVBx' having unoperated cataract. Universal access to health care
kzS=g|_ in Australia may explain the fact that people without
PSmfiaThwo Medicare are more likely to delay cataract operations in the
WmQ01v USA,8 but not having private health insurance is not associated
>u(>aV|A with unoperated cataract in Australia.
`:G% In summary, cataract is a significant public health problem
<_./SC in that one in four people in their 80s will have had cataract
VNtPKtx\ surgery. The importance of age-related cataract surgery will
<d7V<&@o= increase further with the ageing of the population: the
!"TZ:"VZU number of people over age 60 years is expected to double in
47T}0q, the next 20 years. Cataract surgery services are well
1SV^ ){5I accessed by the Victorian population and the visual outcomes
N|2y"5 of cataract surgery have been shown to be very good.
sF+=KH These data can be used to plan for age-related cataract
;bX4(CMe
& surgical services in Australia in the future as the need for
\ U-vI:J_ cataract extractions increases.
'~wpP=<yyF ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
2~;&g?T6 The Visual Impairment Project was funded in part by grants
bxXiQa from the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, the
=qvZpB7ZZ National Health and Medical Research Council, the Ansell
5H:@8,B Ophthalmology Foundation, the Dorothy Edols Estate and
C+MSVc the Jack Brockhoff Foundation. Dr McCarty is the recipient
i$-#dc2qY of a Wagstaff Fellowship in Ophthalmology from the Royal
>LF&EM] Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital.
NgB 7?]vu REFERENCES
`$z)$VuP 1. Keeffe JE, Taylor HR. Cataract surgery in Australia 1985–94.
y02u?wJ Aust. N.Z. J. Ophthalmol. 1996; 24: 313–17.
<V_7|)'/A 2. Sperduto RD, Hiller R. The prevalence of nuclear, cortical,
} IlP: and posterior subcapsular lens opacities in a general population
|[cdri^?D sample. Ophthalmology 1984; 91: 815–18.
0d\~"4 R 3. Maraini G, Pasquini P, Sperduto RD et al. Distribution of lens
xNN@ 1P[* opacities in the Italian-American case–control study of agerelated
p#_[ cataract. Ophthalmology 1990; 97: 752–6.
8t.dPy< 4. Klein BEK, Klein R, Linton KLP. Prevalence of age-related
qvLDfN lens opacities in a population. The Beaver Dam Eye Study.
'0+$ m= Ophthalmology 1992; 99: 546–52.
Z-|li}lDr 5. Guiffrè G, Giammanco R, Di Pace F, Ponte F. Casteldaccia eye
}BN\/;<A study: prevalence of cataract in the adult and elderly population
"~p+0Xws9 of a Mediterranean town. Int. Ophthalmol. 1995; 18:
Vf{2dZZ{1 363–71.
R.7#zhC`4 6. Mitchell P, Cumming RG, Attebo K, Panchapakesan J.
(Imp
$ Prevalence of cataract in Australia. The Blue Mountains Eye
D&[Z;,CHMA Study. Ophthalmology 1997; 104: 581–8.
P&t;WPZ 7. Keeffe JE, McCarty CA, Chang WP, Steinberg EP, Taylor HR.
2X@G" Relative importance of VA, patient concern and patient
\mXqak,y lifestyle on referral for cataract surgery. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis.
*:arva5
Sci. 1996; 37: S183.
g
EKO128 8. Curbow B, Legro MW, Brenner MH. The influence of patientrelated
xYR#%! M variables in the timing of cataract extraction. Am. J.
[(cL/_ Ophthalmol. 1993; 115: 614–22.
d1NE% hg3 9. Sletteberg OH, Høvding G, Bertelsen T. Do we operate too
VBx,iuaw many cataracts? The referred cataract patients’ own appraisal
&`PbO of their need for surgery. Acta Ophthalmol. Scand. 1995; 73:
8!
j=vCv 77–80.
4Vx+[8W 10. Escarce JJ. Would eliminating differences in physician practice
)Z:m)k>r; style reduce geographic variations in cataract surgery rates?
W#45a.v
Med. Care 1993; 31: 1106–18.
bhKV +oN 11. Livingston PM, Carson CA, Stanislavsky YL, Lee SE, Guest
Cj$H[K}> CS, Taylor HR. Methods for a population-based study of eye
5<r)+?!n disease: the Melbourne Visual Impairment Project. Ophthalmic
)@c3##Zp) Epidemiol. 1994; 1: 139–48.
K.h]JD]o 12. Taylor HR, West SK. A simple system for the clinical grading
l\U*sro< of lens opacities. Lens Res. 1988; 5: 175–81.
Y:%"K 82 McCarty et al.
s=\7)n=,M 13. Cochran WG. Sampling Techniques. New York: John Wiley &
L{K*~B -p Sons, 1977; 249–73.
36i_D6 14. Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical Methods in Cancer Research. Volume
Q=XA"R II – the Design and Analysis of Cohort Studies. Lyon: International
htg'tA^CtS Agency for Research on Cancer; 1987; 52–61.
XbXgU#% 15. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 1996 Census of Population and
ws().IZ Housing. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1997.
GFY-IC+fc 16. Livingston PM, Lee SE, McCarty CA, Taylor HR. A comparison
!pV<n of participants with non-participants in a populationbased
>";%2u1 epidemiologic study: the Melbourne Visual Impairment
]kH}lr
yG Project. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 1997; 4: 73–82.
intvlki]be 17. Programme for the Prevention of Blindness. Global Initiative for the
t*rp3BIG Elimination of Avoidable Blindness. Geneva: World Health
}*ODM6 Organization, 1997.
l^BEFk; 18. Applegate WB, Miller ST, Elam JT, Freeman JM, Wood TO,
9$EHK Gettlefinger TC. Impact of cataract surgery with lens implantation
3v G
on vision and physical function in elderly patients.
U!
_sh< JAMA 1987; 257: 1064–6.
Q{`@
G"' 19. Steinberg EP, Tielsch JM, Schein OD et al. National Study of
4Z],+?.[ Cataract Surgery Outcomes. Variation in 4-month postoperative
taBO4LV outcomes as reflected in multiple outcome measures.
x1:vUHwC Ophthalmology 1994; 101:1131–41.
Ckw83X 20. Klein BEK, Klein R, Moss SE. Change in visual acuity associated
I_K[!4~Kn with cataract surgery. The Beaver Dam Eye Study.
@<
VG8{ Ophthalmology 1996; 103: 1727–31.
wiKCr/ 21. McCarty CA, Keeffe JE, Taylor HR. The need for cataract
# e$\~c Pd surgery: projections based on lens opacity, visual acuity, and
YlG;A\]k personal concern. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1999; 83: 62–5.
kzW\z4f 22. Brenner MH, Curbow B, Javitt JC, Legro MW, Sommer A.
[6oq#
# Vision change and quality of life in the elderly. Response to
O5c_\yv= cataract surgery and treatment of other ocular conditions.
uFMs^^# Arch. Ophthalmol. 1993; 111: 680–5.
T27:"LVw 23. Schaumberg DA, Dana MR, Christen WG, Glynn RJ. A
9F/|` systematic overview of the incidence of posterior capsule
q`h7H][(A opacification. Ophthalmology 1998; 105: 1213–21.
NEZH<# 24. Mordue A, Parkin DW, Baxter C, Fawcett G, Stewart M.
DI L)7K4 Thresholds for treatment in cataract surgery. J. Public Health
|>M-+@gj Med. 1994; 16: 393–8.
+'!h-x1y~ 25. Norregaard JC, Bernth-Peterson P, Alonso J et al. Variations in
$0ym_6n indications for cataract surgery in the United States, Denmark,
U$MWsDn
Canada, and Spain: results from the International Cataract
wEZqkV Surgery Outcomes Study. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1998; 82: 1107–11.