ABSTRACT
9}Ud'#E Purpose: To quantify the prevalence of cataract, the outcomes
m_\w) of cataract surgery and the factors related to
S#
Tc{@e unoperated cataract in Australia.
oMawINDa Methods: Participants were recruited from the Visual
D]S@U>]M! Impairment Project: a cluster, stratified sample of more than
R5c
Ya 5000 Victorians aged 40 years and over. At examination
4HQP, sites interviews, clinical examinations and lens photography
tfW/Mf were performed. Cataract was defined in participants who
Y u\<
had: had previous cataract surgery, cortical cataract greater
6ziiV_p than 4/16, nuclear greater than Wilmer standard 2, or
j}7as& posterior subcapsular greater than 1 mm2.
y! he<4 Results: The participant group comprised 3271 Melbourne
ZqT?7 |i residents, 403 Melbourne nursing home residents and 1473
SIv8EMGo rural residents.The weighted rate of any cataract in Victoria
bCr) 3, was 21.5%. The overall weighted rate of prior cataract
86NAa6BW surgery was 3.79%. Two hundred and forty-nine eyes had
NWWag} had prior cataract surgery. Of these 249 procedures, 49
=+9.X8SP (20%) were aphakic, 6 (2.4%) had anterior chamber
1ThONrxu intraocular lenses and 194 (78%) had posterior chamber
Kk#g(YgNz intraocular lenses.Two hundred and eleven of these operated
b fy `UZr eyes (85%) had best-corrected visual acuity of 6/12 or
yQ5&S]Xk$$ better, the legal requirement for a driver’s license.Twentyseven
F4'g}yOLd (11%) had visual acuity of less than 6/18 (moderate
=!u9]3) vision impairment). Complications of cataract surgery
y^7;I- caused reduced vision in four of the 27 eyes (15%), or 1.9%
q$FwO"dC of operated eyes. Three of these four eyes had undergone
VP[-BK[ intracapsular cataract extraction and the fourth eye had an
r2A%.bL# opaque posterior capsule. No one had bilateral vision
^*.S7.;2o impairment as a result of cataract surgery. Surprisingly, no
;/+VHZP; particular demographic factors (such as age, gender, rural
pwo5Ij,~q residence, occupation, employment status, health insurance
td!WgL,m status, ethnicity) were related to the presence of unoperated
6(Za}H cataract.
qj*IKS Conclusions: Although the overall prevalence of cataract is
w{uqy] quite high, no particular subgroup is systematically underserviced
6v~` jS%3 in terms of cataract surgery. Overall, the results of
Td tn- cataract surgery are very good, with the majority of eyes
]-h$CJSY achieving driving vision following cataract extraction.
~Wy&xs ZH Key words: cataract extraction, health planning, health
Pw:(X0@ services accessibility, prevalence
lrSdFJ% INTRODUCTION
n';"c;Ye) Cataract is the leading cause of blindness worldwide and, in
*:t]|$;E\ Australia, cataract extractions account for the majority of all
_22;hnG<iy ophthalmic procedures.1 Over the period 1985–94, the rate
9F+i+(\,b of cataract surgery in Australia was twice as high as would be
E~oQ%X~ expected from the growth in the elderly population.1
|jB]5ciT Although there have been a number of studies reporting
p&1IK8i" the prevalence of cataract in various populations,2–6 there is
2 mM0\ja little information about determinants of cataract surgery in
=Gsn4>~%n the population. A previous survey of Australian ophthalmologists
j" wX7 showed that patient concern and lifestyle, rather
XVXiiQ^
than visual acuity itself, are the primary factors for referral
gQy{OU for cataract surgery.7 This supports prior research which has
4k'
2FkDA shown that visual acuity is not a strong predictor of need for
qc^u% cataract surgery.8,9 Elsewhere, socioeconomic status has
oXw} K((| been shown to be related to cataract surgery rates.10
V0hC[Ilr To appropriately plan health care services, information is
@91Q=S needed about the prevalence of age-related cataract in the
0gY,[aQ2 community as well as the factors associated with cataract
'Y23U7 n0B surgery. The purpose of this study is to quantify the prevalence
d ; (&_; of any cataract in Australia, to describe the factors
S0. related to unoperated cataract in the community and to
$<^4G describe the visual outcomes of cataract surgery.
I!bzvPJ]xc METHODS
;u;Y fOr Study population
KobNi#O+
Details about the study methodology for the Visual
e6
s-; Impairment Project have been published previously.11
a&YD4DQ05 Briefly, cluster sampling within three strata was employed to
=x
"N0p recruit subjects aged 40 years and over to participate.
0Eq.l < Within the Melbourne Statistical Division, nine pairs of
T
xRa&1 census collector districts were randomly selected. Fourteen
k#k !AcC nursing homes within a 5 km radius of these nine test sites
@]lKQZ^2& were randomly chosen to recruit nursing home residents.
k1y&'3% Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology (2000) 28, 77–82
b6!?K!imT Original Article
)W9$_<Z Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia
{UT>>
*C Catherine A McCarty PhD, MPH, Mukesh B Nanjan PhD, Hugh R Taylor MD
RW
23lRA6 Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
` +]9+:tS n Correspondence: Dr Cathy McCarty MPH, Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, 32 Gisborne Street, East Melbourne,
NC::;e Victoria 3002, Australia. Email:
cathy@cera.unimelb.edu.au ?}^e,.M0?s 78 McCarty et al.
jM1|+o*Wr Finally, four pairs of census collector districts in four rural
@=x=dL( Victorian communities were randomly selected to recruit rural
*%5#\ I residents. A household census was conducted to identify
mJb>)bOl eligible residents aged 40 years and over who had been a
'/
3..3k resident at that address for at least 6 months. At the time of
l'-dB the household census, basic information about age, sex,
c>d+q9M country of birth, language spoken at home, education, use of
R7cY$K{j corrective spectacles and use of eye care services was collected.
ZQND^a: Eligible residents were then invited to attend a local
B&|F9Z6D examination site for a more detailed interview and examination.
VR5$[-E3 The study protocol was approved by the Royal Victorian
5{qFKo"g@, Eye and Ear Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee.
msg&~"Z Assessment of cataract
a
#?%I# A standardized ophthalmic examination was performed after
~d_Z?Z pupil dilatation with one drop of 10% phenylephrine
pgT{#[=> hydrochloride. Lens opacities were graded clinically at the
tDFN
*#( time of the examination and subsequently from photos using
csT_!sII the Wilmer cataract photo-grading system.12 Cortical and
ftsr-3!Vm posterior subcapsular (PSC) opacities were assessed on
x,
a[ p\1 retroillumination and measured as the proportion (in 1/16)
[~?LOH of pupil circumference occupied by opacity. For this analysis,
VztalwI cortical cataract was defined as 4/16 or greater opacity,
2?rg&og6 PSC cataract was defined as opacity equal to or greater than
vjaIFyj 1 mm2 and nuclear cataract was defined as opacity equal to
VcIsAK".4[ or greater than Wilmer standard 2,12 independent of visual
N8}R<3/ acuity. Examples of the minimum opacities defined as cortical,
LslQZ]3MY nuclear and PSC cataract are presented in Figure 1.
fGb(=l
Bilateral congenital cataracts or cataracts secondary to
A,e/y intraocular inflammation or trauma were excluded from the
1F-o3\ analysis. Two cases of bilateral secondary cataract and eight
xeo;4c#S5 cases of bilateral congenital cataract were excluded from the
z|F>+6l"Y7 analyses.
rAIX(2@cR_ A Topcon® SL5 photo slit-lamp (Topcon America Corp.,
UtG@0(6C Paramus, NJ, USA) with a 0.1 mm slit beam of 9.0 mm in
j[m\;3Sp height set to an incident angle of 30° was used for examinations.
_)p@;vGV Ektachrome® 200 ASA colour slide film (Eastman
!Zgb|e8< Kodak Company, Rochester, NY, USA) was used to photograph
!0c7nzjm the nuclear opacities. The cortical opacities were
RW48>4f/+ photographed with an Oxford® retroillumination camera
|OF<=GGO+ (Marcher Enterprises Ltd, Hereford, UK) and T-MAX® 400
T,Cq;|g5E film (Eastman Kodak). Photographs were graded separately
-aLBj?N c[ by two research assistants and discrepancies were adjudicated
u9"b,].b by an independent reviewer. Any discrepancies
j\q1b:pE between the clinical grades and the photograph grades were
f'\I52;FB resolved. Except in cases where photographs were missing,
Kl{2^q> the photograph grades were used in the analyses. Photograph
?0hk~8c grades were available for 4301 (84%) for cortical
7on$}=% cataract, 4147 (81%) for nuclear cataract and 4303 (84%)
/8Bh for PSC cataract. Cataract status was classified according to
99G/(Z} the severity of the opacity in the worse eye.
E0\ ' Assessment of risk factors
`5< A standardized questionnaire was used to obtain information
G~a;q+7v'$ about education, employment and ethnic background.11
6=Kl[U0Y Specific information was elicited on the occurrence, duration
s#&jE
GBug and treatment of a number of medical conditions,
g?A4C`l6iy including ocular trauma, arthritis, diabetes, gout, hypertension
{3yzC and mental illness. Information about the use, dose and
LT!.M m duration of tobacco, alcohol, analgesics and steriods were
8xDSeXh; collected, and a food frequency questionnaire was used to
TGdD7n&Ehh determine current consumption of dietary sources of antioxidants
/8q7pwV and use of vitamin supplements.
Ag }hyIl Data management and statistical analysis
bnUpH3 Data were collected either by direct computer entry with a
37?%xQ! questionnaire programmed in Paradox© (Carel Corporation,
L:%ek3SOz Ottawa, Canada) with internal consistency checks, or
jeN_
sm81b on self-coding forms. Open-ended responses were coded at
SLSJn))@! a later time. Data that were entered on the self-coded forms
ZL #4X*zT were entered into a computer with double data entry and
yf*MG&} reconciliation of any inconsistencies. Data range and consistency
} !pC}m checks were performed on the entire data set.
\|@]XNSN SAS© version 6.1 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina) was
*oY59Yf employed for statistical analyses.
}=^YLu= Ninety-five per cent confidence limits around the agespecific
A~\:}PN rates were calculated according to Cochran13 to
*1ek
w#' account for the effect of the cluster sampling. Ninety-five
$bF.6 per cent confidence limits around age-standardized rates
/jC0[%~jV were calculated according to Breslow and Day.14 The strataspecific
2!~j(_TA data were weighted according to the 1996
-86 9$ Australian Bureau of Statistics census data15 to reflect the
AVOqW0Z+y cataract prevalence in the entire Victorian population.
"6Nma)8 Univariate analyses with Student’s t-tests and chi-squared
}pu2/44=W tests were first employed to evaluate risk factors for unoperated
Fq&@dxN3 cataract. Any factors with P < 0.10 were then fitted
NlU:e}zGR into a backwards stepwise logistic regression model. For the
r}WV"/]p Figure 1. Minimum levels of cortical (a), nuclear (b), and posterior subcapsular (c) cataract.
%~4R)bsJ' final multivariate models, P < 0.05 was considered statistically
2xni! *T+ significant. Design effect was assessed through the use
}{ pNasAU of cluster-specific models and multivariate models. The
A_{QY&%m design effect was assumed to be additive and an adjustment
\'GX^0yK made in the variance by adding the variance associated with
\kzxt/Ow the design effect prior to constructing the 95% confidence
Pgr>qcbql limits.
Zu$f-_" RESULTS
bNFX+GA/ Study population
c<A@Op"A A total of 3271 (83%) of the Melbourne residents, 403
4eU};Pv (90%) Melbourne nursing home residents, and 1473 (92%)
6}L[7~1
rural residents participated. In general, non-participants did
_t:rWC"X not differ from participants.16 The study population was
[
LL"86D representative of the Victorian population and Australia as
o8KlY?hX a whole.
L
G,XhN The Melbourne residents ranged in age from 40 to
M7e
O5 98 years (mean = 59) and 1511 (46%) were male. The
;g^QHr Melbourne nursing home residents ranged in age from 46 to
GaSk&'n$Y 101 years (mean = 82) and 85 (21%) were men. The rural
A}~hc&J residents ranged in age from 40 to 103 years (mean = 60)
R|$=Pfg~4 and 701 (47.5%) were men.
"0`r]5 5d Prevalence of cataract and prior cataract surgery
"o<:[c9/ As would be expected, the rate of any cataract increases
6DaH+ dramatically with age (Table 1). The weighted rate of any
@
D9c cataract in Victoria was 21.5% (95% CL 18.1, 24.9).
7xwS
.| Although the rates varied somewhat between the three
xPQO}wKa strata, they were not significantly different as the 95% confidence
WB6g i2 limits overlapped. The per cent of cataractous eyes
{8@?9Z9R{ with best-corrected visual acuity of less than 6/12 was 12.5%
.oaW#f}0P (65/520) for cortical cataract, 18% for nuclear cataract
A.
U< (97/534) and 14.4% (27/187) for PSC cataract. Cataract
'3[Ecy# surgery also rose dramatically with age. The overall
&^ =t%A%# weighted rate of prior cataract surgery in Victoria was
xfkG&
& 3.79% (95% CL 2.97, 4.60) (Table 2).
@o9EX } Risk factors for unoperated cataract
O5Yk=-_m Cases of cataract that had not been removed were classified
wh|[
"U(' as unoperated cataract. Risk factor analyses for unoperated
"Z&qOQg%3 cataract were not performed with the nursing home residents
zi-zg Lx as information about risk factor exposure was not
8Dhq_R'r available for this cohort. The following factors were assessed
XXuU@G6Z7$ in relation to unoperated cataract: age, sex, residence
nLto=tNUO (urban/rural), language spoken at home (a measure of ethnic
o[+1O integration), country of birth, parents’ country of birth (a
*3S,XMS{O measure of ethnicity), years since migration, education, use
pSE"]N of ophthalmic services, use of optometric services, private
HY5g>wv@ health insurance status, duration of distance glasses use,
.}SW`RPk glaucoma, age-related maculopathy and employment status.
9S=9m[#y' In this cross sectional study it was not possible to assess the
zoC/Hm level of visual acuity that would predict a patient’s having
fU>"d>6!S cataract surgery, as visual acuity data prior to cataract
d";+8S surgery were not available.
YXrTm[P The significant risk factors for unoperated cataract in univariate
&p8K0 | analyses were related to: whether a participant had
)P:TVe9` ever seen an optometrist, seen an ophthalmologist or been
ouVR[w>V diagnosed with glaucoma; and participants’ employment
+c}
fDrr) status (currently employed) and age. These significant
7k+UCiu> factors were placed in a backwards stepwise logistic regression
tz1iabZ{ model. The factors that remained significantly related
|5e/ .T$ to unoperated cataract were whether participants had ever
L)8;96 seen an ophthalmologist, seen an optometrist and been
iknB c-TLD diagnosed with glaucoma. None of the demographic factors
(d4z
NYK were associated with unoperated cataract in the multivariate
j,EE`g&
model.
bC?t4-W The per cent of participants with unoperated cataract
;op+~@*! who said that they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with
=ZzhH};aX Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia 79
2x$\vL0 Table 1. Prevalence of any cataracta (excluding previous cataract surgery) by age, gender and cohort
xx!o]D-} Age group Sex Urban Rural Nursing home Weighted total
KkJ
cHU
(years) (%) (%) (%)
/A|ofAr) 40–49 Male 2.56 4.04 0.00 3.00 (1.91, 4.08)
Z0b1E Female 2.61 1.70 0.00 2.36 (1.61, 3.10)
isWB)$q 50–59 Male 7.69 6.94 0.00 7.47 (5.80, 9.15)
uDH)0# Female 6.67 7.56 0.00 6.92 (5.60, 8.24)
VaVKWJg$ 60–69 Male 20.7 25.0 10.0 22.0 (18.1, 26.0)
0)k%nIhj Female 27.9 35.7 37.5 30.3 (26.0, 34.7)
RTLu]Bry 70–79 Male 43.1 58.7 39.1 48.1 (41.2, 55.1)
6$fC
R Female 58.6 66.2 55.6 61.0 (56.0, 65.9)
9DKmXL 80–89 Male 74.0 89.3 92.0 79.3 (72.3, 86.3)
gq Z7Pro. Female 91.9 97.0 80.2 92.6 (86.4, 98.8)
N4)&K[ 90 + Male 100.0 100.0 75.0 98.8 (96.2, 100.0)
={={W Female 100.0 100.0 93.8 98.6 (97.0, 100.0)
x9-K}s]% Age-standardized
9dqD(S#C;" (95% CL) Combined 19.7 (16.3, 23.1) 23.2 (16.1, 30.2) 16.5 (2.06, 30.9) 21.5 (18.1, 25.0)
~NU~jmT2 aCortical > 4/16, nuclear > standard 2, posterior subcapsular > 1 mm2
asPD>j c their current vision was 30% (290/683), compared with 27%
jDH)S{k (26/95) of participants with prior cataract surgery (chisquared,
P,I3E?! j 1 d.f. = 0.25, P = 0.62).
P4R.~J ;8 Outcomes of cataract surgery
IK~ur\3 Two hundred and forty-nine eyes had undergone prior
WYEvW<Hv cataract surgery. Of these 249 operated eyes, 49 (20%) were
-lb}}z+/ left aphakic, 6 (2.4%) had anterior chamber intraocular
c{||l+B lenses and 194 (78%) had posterior chamber intraocular
gj6"U{D lenses. The rate of capsulotomy in the eyes with intact
Srol0D I posterior capsules was 36% (73/202). Fifteen per cent of
{D`F$=Dlw eyes (17/114) with a clear posterior capsule had bestcorrected
b$rBxe\ visual acuity of less than 6/12 compared with 43%
IQ2<Pinv of eyes (6/14) with opaque capsules, and 15% of eyes
2S!=2u
+7 (11/73) with prior capsulotomies (chi-squared, 2 d.f. = 7.21,
nU`vj`K
P = 0.027).
G
>#L The percentage of eyes with best-corrected visual acuity
g\ <Lb
of 6/12 or better was 96% (302/314) for eyes without
4XX21<yn cataract, 88% (1417/1609) for eyes with prevalent cataract
IO v4Zx<) and 85% (211/249) for eyes with operated cataract (chisquared,
`pII-dSC% 2 d.f. = 22.3), P < 0.001). Twenty-seven of the
='soSnT operated eyes (11%) had visual acuities of less than 6/18
B<:i[~`7t (moderate vision impairment) (Fig. 2). A cause of this
$5il]
D` moderate visual impairment (but not the only cause) in four
N_/&xHw (15%) eyes was secondary to cataract surgery. Three of these
Y;-" Z four eyes had undergone intracapsular cataract extraction
NbkWy and the fourth eye had an opaque posterior capsule. No one
3@6f
%Dyj had bilateral vision impairment as a result of their cataract
(qohb0 surgery.
b3Y9 DISCUSSION
0{A VH/S To our knowledge, this is the first paper to systematically
.bL{fBTT~ assess the prevalence of current cataract, previous cataract
U%w-/!p surgery, predictors of unoperated cataract and the outcomes
I&>R]DV of cataract surgery in a population-based sample. The Visual
{d^&$
~ Impairment Project is unique in that the sampling frame and
S1`+r0Fk~n high response rate have ensured that the study population is
#c?\(qjWA representative of Australians aged 40 years and over. Therefore,
/xf%Rp4} these data can be used to plan age-related cataract
yVh]hL#4+w services throughout Australia.
\>,{)j q; We found the rate of any cataract in those over the age
o`G'E& of 40 years to be 22%. Although relatively high, this rate is
LX*T<|c`' significantly less than was reported in a number of previous
PX]A1Kt? studies,2,4,6 with the exception of the Casteldaccia Eye
)G*Hl^Z;4 Study.5 However, it is difficult to compare rates of cataract
;O{AYF?,N between studies because of different methodologies and
??1V__w cataract definitions employed in the various studies, as well
6Y}#vZ as the different age structures of the study populations.
9"MC< Other studies have used less conservative definitions of
o{zo-:>Jp cataract, thus leading to higher rates of cataract as defined.
3(FJ<,"D} In most large epidemiologic studies of cataract, visual acuity
hiP^*5h has not been included in the definition of cataract.
o*r\&!NIw Therefore, the prevalence of cataract may not reflect the
JNX7]j\ actual need for cataract surgery in the community.
;QgJw2G 80 McCarty et al.
zL)m!:_ Table 2. Prevalence of previous cataract by age, gender and cohort
DSET!F;PG Age group Gender Urban Rural Nursing home Weighted total
P8;|>OLZ) (years) (%) (%) (%)
dwAju:-H 40–49 Male 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.80 (0.00, 1.81)
4-cnkv\~ Female 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (
H!oP!rzEo 50–59 Male 0.68 0.58 0.00 0.65 (0.13, 1.17)
:ykQ[d`:| Female 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.41 (0.00, 1.00)
M@{GT/`Pf 60–69 Male 2.12 7.59 0.00 3.80 (1.41, 6.19)
=
#ocp Female 2.11 3.51 0.00 2.54 (1.81, 3.26)
JH<q7Y6!y 70–79 Male 8.22 9.85 8.70 8.75 (6.38, 11.1)
5O*.qp? Female 7.21 7.86 7.02 7.41 (5.36, 9.46)
FV:{lC{h~ 80–89 Male 25.0 30.0 14.3 26.2 (17.0, 35.4)
rD<@$KpP Female 27.9 25.6 18.3 26.7 (20.2, 33.3)
1 ht4LRFi 90 + Male 0.00 16.7 66.7 9.19 (0.00, 21.5)
[/5>)HK} C Female 58.3 100.0 26.9 63.1 (44.4, 81.8)
m<"1*d~ Age-standardized
cWh Aj>?_Q (95% CL) Combined 3.31 (2.70, 3.93) 4.36 (2.67, 6.06) 2.26 (0.82, 3.70) 3.79 (2.97, 4.60)
f9OVylm Figure 2. Visual acuity in eyes that had undergone cataract
S>cT(q_& surgery, n = 249. h, Presenting; j, best-corrected.
0~n=|3*P Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia 81
8+gSn The weighted prevalence of prior cataract surgery in the
#lV&U Visual Impairment Project (3.6%) was similar to the crude
!BK^5,4?-- rate in the Beaver Dam Eye Study4 (3.1%), but less than the
}$g5:k! crude rate in the Blue Mountains Eye Study6 (6.0%).
T[ky7\ However, the age-standardized rate in the Blue Mountains
QE-t v00 Eye Study (standardized to the age distribution of the urban
51&wH Visual Impairment Project cohort) was found to be less than
C5;"mo- the Visual Impairment Project (standardized rate = 1.36%,
#4~Ivj 95% CL 1.25, 1.47). The incidence of cataract surgery in
i-tX5Md| Australia has exceeded population growth.1 This is due,
J,P7k$t2vv perhaps, to advances in surgical techniques and lens
S{fNeK implants that have changed the risk–benefit ratio.
QN*'MA"M The Global Initiative for the Elimination of Avoidable
U/{cYX Blindness, sponsored by the World Health Organization,
> `z^AB states that cataract surgical services should be provided that
+a;:7[%& ‘have a high success rate in terms of visual outcome and
nA%
-< improved quality of life’,17 although the ‘high success rate’ is
X0P<ifIv not defined. Population- and clinic-based studies conducted
5n?fZ?6( in the United States have demonstrated marked improvement
xr.fZMOh4 in visual acuity following cataract surgery.18–20 We
RHE< QG found that 85% of eyes that had undergone cataract extraction
1/j}VC had visual acuity of 6/12 or better. Previously, we have
<3ovCqa shown that participants with prevalent cataract in this
l_QpPo!a cohort are more likely to express dissatisfaction with their
kj+AsQC, current vision than participants without cataract or participants
syBYH5 with prior cataract surgery.21 In a national study in the
coU`2n/ United States, researchers found that the change in patients’
\s+<w3 ratings of their vision difficulties and satisfaction with their
9SMM%(3, r vision after cataract surgery were more highly related to
[.|tD their change in visual functioning score than to their change
QeU>%qKT in visual acuity.19 Furthermore, improvement in visual function
X~n Kuo has been shown to be associated with improvement in
k6G23p[9 overall quality of life.22
K;S&91V)= A recent review found that the incidence of visually
va#~ \%` significant posterior capsule opacification following
,!u^E|24
cataract surgery to be greater than 25%.23 We found 36%
Z`<
+8e capsulotomy in our population and that this was associated
Q/0;r{@Tq} with visual acuity similar to that of eyes with a clear
IKAF%0[R|j capsule, but significantly better than that of eyes with an
ilpg() opaque capsule.
\/{qE hP A number of studies have shown that the demand and
kD"dZQx timing of cataract surgery vary according to visual acuity,
f)N67z6 degree of handicap and socioeconomic factors.8–10,24,25 We
AE^&hH0^ have also shown previously that ophthalmologists are more
!)_5 z<
likely to refer a patient for cataract surgery if the patient is
BOfO$J} employed and less likely to refer a nursing home resident.7
/`2VJw
In the Visual Impairment Project, we did not find that any
5C{X$7u particular subgroup of the population was at greater risk of
&[JI L=m5 having unoperated cataract. Universal access to health care
NL2n\%n in Australia may explain the fact that people without
%3"3OOT7 Medicare are more likely to delay cataract operations in the
bCA3w%,k
M USA,8 but not having private health insurance is not associated
Z p]Bs with unoperated cataract in Australia.
_czLKbcF In summary, cataract is a significant public health problem
+
Y 3_)
in that one in four people in their 80s will have had cataract
qY#*zx surgery. The importance of age-related cataract surgery will
0qJ 3@d increase further with the ageing of the population: the
N9{ivq|fO number of people over age 60 years is expected to double in
~x>IN1Vci the next 20 years. Cataract surgery services are well
"P0o)g+{ accessed by the Victorian population and the visual outcomes
5nf|CQH6? of cataract surgery have been shown to be very good.
-c|O!Lc- These data can be used to plan for age-related cataract
_FAwW<S4B surgical services in Australia in the future as the need for
B(b[Dbb cataract extractions increases.
?;uzx7@F ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
=U|J{^ >I The Visual Impairment Project was funded in part by grants
Bg7?1m from the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, the
APK@Oq National Health and Medical Research Council, the Ansell
0Dh a1[= Ophthalmology Foundation, the Dorothy Edols Estate and
y "7TO# the Jack Brockhoff Foundation. Dr McCarty is the recipient
9n@jK%m of a Wagstaff Fellowship in Ophthalmology from the Royal
I0)iC[s8; Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital.
uiHlaMf REFERENCES
hRc\&+#/ 1. Keeffe JE, Taylor HR. Cataract surgery in Australia 1985–94.
$OjsaE% Aust. N.Z. J. Ophthalmol. 1996; 24: 313–17.
jzzVZ%
t 2. Sperduto RD, Hiller R. The prevalence of nuclear, cortical,
,9W 0fm\t and posterior subcapsular lens opacities in a general population
-pX/Tt6 sample. Ophthalmology 1984; 91: 815–18.
W,w g@2 3. Maraini G, Pasquini P, Sperduto RD et al. Distribution of lens
9f
BD.9A opacities in the Italian-American case–control study of agerelated
7d'@Z2%J0 cataract. Ophthalmology 1990; 97: 752–6.
wl(}F^:/` 4. Klein BEK, Klein R, Linton KLP. Prevalence of age-related
n7{1m$/ lens opacities in a population. The Beaver Dam Eye Study.
U76:F?MH Ophthalmology 1992; 99: 546–52.
Or6'5e?N 5. Guiffrè G, Giammanco R, Di Pace F, Ponte F. Casteldaccia eye
UDp"+nS study: prevalence of cataract in the adult and elderly population
u45e>F= of a Mediterranean town. Int. Ophthalmol. 1995; 18:
B=n]N+ 363–71.
fI}-?@ 6. Mitchell P, Cumming RG, Attebo K, Panchapakesan J.
S93NsrBbY Prevalence of cataract in Australia. The Blue Mountains Eye
QuF%m^aE Study. Ophthalmology 1997; 104: 581–8.
G. <9K9K 7. Keeffe JE, McCarty CA, Chang WP, Steinberg EP, Taylor HR.
ym ,S/Uz Relative importance of VA, patient concern and patient
>@ EQarD lifestyle on referral for cataract surgery. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis.
'| Ag,x[ Sci. 1996; 37: S183.
1X#`NUJ?2 8. Curbow B, Legro MW, Brenner MH. The influence of patientrelated
%f:'A%'Qb variables in the timing of cataract extraction. Am. J.
gvsS:4N"Nq Ophthalmol. 1993; 115: 614–22.
L6Ynid.k 9. Sletteberg OH, Høvding G, Bertelsen T. Do we operate too
a
IqNNR many cataracts? The referred cataract patients’ own appraisal
]~a!O of their need for surgery. Acta Ophthalmol. Scand. 1995; 73:
IXzad 77–80.
j-A
S {w 10. Escarce JJ. Would eliminating differences in physician practice
!)LR41>? style reduce geographic variations in cataract surgery rates?
-R&h?ec Med. Care 1993; 31: 1106–18.
/Ee0S8!Z!1 11. Livingston PM, Carson CA, Stanislavsky YL, Lee SE, Guest
RA\H?1;8C CS, Taylor HR. Methods for a population-based study of eye
n,AN&BZ disease: the Melbourne Visual Impairment Project. Ophthalmic
&4{%3 w_/ Epidemiol. 1994; 1: 139–48.
=8
tduB 12. Taylor HR, West SK. A simple system for the clinical grading
L`"cu.l of lens opacities. Lens Res. 1988; 5: 175–81.
v $pARt 82 McCarty et al.
TF
M}
P 13. Cochran WG. Sampling Techniques. New York: John Wiley &
c6?5?_ne Sons, 1977; 249–73.
]%mg(&p4 14. Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical Methods in Cancer Research. Volume
L(8Q%oX%o II – the Design and Analysis of Cohort Studies. Lyon: International
# ^%'*/z Agency for Research on Cancer; 1987; 52–61.
071wo7 15. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 1996 Census of Population and
?G8 D6 Housing. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1997.
wvUph[j}J 16. Livingston PM, Lee SE, McCarty CA, Taylor HR. A comparison
_L:
/2 of participants with non-participants in a populationbased
~xHr/: epidemiologic study: the Melbourne Visual Impairment
hW|t~|j#_ Project. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 1997; 4: 73–82.
~gX@2!D5k 17. Programme for the Prevention of Blindness. Global Initiative for the
Gt 2rJ<> Elimination of Avoidable Blindness. Geneva: World Health
HVk3F|]V Organization, 1997.
rc;| ,\ 18. Applegate WB, Miller ST, Elam JT, Freeman JM, Wood TO,
!(o)*S Gettlefinger TC. Impact of cataract surgery with lens implantation
uF<F4m; on vision and physical function in elderly patients.
>iG` JAMA 1987; 257: 1064–6.
1"!<e$&$X 19. Steinberg EP, Tielsch JM, Schein OD et al. National Study of
7p~@S4 Cataract Surgery Outcomes. Variation in 4-month postoperative
^pg5o)M outcomes as reflected in multiple outcome measures.
9V
P|a- Ophthalmology 1994; 101:1131–41.
Q2Q`g`* O: 20. Klein BEK, Klein R, Moss SE. Change in visual acuity associated
:jUd?( with cataract surgery. The Beaver Dam Eye Study.
kvo741RO6 Ophthalmology 1996; 103: 1727–31.
"+)ey>_ 21. McCarty CA, Keeffe JE, Taylor HR. The need for cataract
vKI,|UD&- surgery: projections based on lens opacity, visual acuity, and
4q~l?*S personal concern. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1999; 83: 62–5.
Bp4QHv9xqL 22. Brenner MH, Curbow B, Javitt JC, Legro MW, Sommer A.
);$~/H4 Vision change and quality of life in the elderly. Response to
AWf zMJ;VS cataract surgery and treatment of other ocular conditions.
MiRMjQ2 Arch. Ophthalmol. 1993; 111: 680–5.
WM
>9sJf 23. Schaumberg DA, Dana MR, Christen WG, Glynn RJ. A
r]8B6iV systematic overview of the incidence of posterior capsule
K` U\+AE opacification. Ophthalmology 1998; 105: 1213–21.
;
/EH@V| 24. Mordue A, Parkin DW, Baxter C, Fawcett G, Stewart M.
tfdP#1E Thresholds for treatment in cataract surgery. J. Public Health
L5eaQu Med. 1994; 16: 393–8.
snN1 25. Norregaard JC, Bernth-Peterson P, Alonso J et al. Variations in
\DfvNeF indications for cataract surgery in the United States, Denmark,
o'yR^` Canada, and Spain: results from the International Cataract
)iEK7d^- Surgery Outcomes Study. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1998; 82: 1107–11.