ABSTRACT
{g=b]yg\o Purpose: To quantify the prevalence of cataract, the outcomes
gduxA/aT of cataract surgery and the factors related to
QT}iaeC1i unoperated cataract in Australia.
)1z4q` Methods: Participants were recruited from the Visual
8&Wx@QI Impairment Project: a cluster, stratified sample of more than
/#\?1)jCK 5000 Victorians aged 40 years and over. At examination
g\J)= ,ju, sites interviews, clinical examinations and lens photography
aJQ
XJ,>Lv were performed. Cataract was defined in participants who
.CmL7
5 had: had previous cataract surgery, cortical cataract greater
7-g^2sa'( than 4/16, nuclear greater than Wilmer standard 2, or
:|($,3* posterior subcapsular greater than 1 mm2.
7j R7 Results: The participant group comprised 3271 Melbourne
;qG1
r@o residents, 403 Melbourne nursing home residents and 1473
e5qvyUJM rural residents.The weighted rate of any cataract in Victoria
|$ w0+bV* was 21.5%. The overall weighted rate of prior cataract
<[FS%2,0mb surgery was 3.79%. Two hundred and forty-nine eyes had
1l~.R#W G& had prior cataract surgery. Of these 249 procedures, 49
CH#kvR2 (20%) were aphakic, 6 (2.4%) had anterior chamber
>+f'!*%7He intraocular lenses and 194 (78%) had posterior chamber
&
]%\.m intraocular lenses.Two hundred and eleven of these operated
B*BHF95! eyes (85%) had best-corrected visual acuity of 6/12 or
>]C<j4 better, the legal requirement for a driver’s license.Twentyseven
&LwJ'h+nd (11%) had visual acuity of less than 6/18 (moderate
l#|J
rU! vision impairment). Complications of cataract surgery
UT% #K % caused reduced vision in four of the 27 eyes (15%), or 1.9%
@!,D%]8" of operated eyes. Three of these four eyes had undergone
l`oT: intracapsular cataract extraction and the fourth eye had an
H2s*s[T
- opaque posterior capsule. No one had bilateral vision
&~42T}GTWG impairment as a result of cataract surgery. Surprisingly, no
HI7]%
<L particular demographic factors (such as age, gender, rural
"@aq@mY@ residence, occupation, employment status, health insurance
Ae3,W status, ethnicity) were related to the presence of unoperated
m]Hb+Y=;h cataract.
Qs~d_; Conclusions: Although the overall prevalence of cataract is
5XhK#X%:A quite high, no particular subgroup is systematically underserviced
q+r `e in terms of cataract surgery. Overall, the results of
5~v(AB(x cataract surgery are very good, with the majority of eyes
m*Q[lr= achieving driving vision following cataract extraction.
u4`mQ6 Key words: cataract extraction, health planning, health
&Bj,.dD/a services accessibility, prevalence
*1 n;p)K INTRODUCTION
l{M;PaJ`} Cataract is the leading cause of blindness worldwide and, in
D|u^8\'. Australia, cataract extractions account for the majority of all
Ec7{B
hH) ophthalmic procedures.1 Over the period 1985–94, the rate
;PuyA of cataract surgery in Australia was twice as high as would be
7.w*+Z>z expected from the growth in the elderly population.1
8MYLXW6 Although there have been a number of studies reporting
3I(dC|d the prevalence of cataract in various populations,2–6 there is
-6hu31W little information about determinants of cataract surgery in
v^y}lT the population. A previous survey of Australian ophthalmologists
sw 3:HNG= showed that patient concern and lifestyle, rather
SdjUhR+o than visual acuity itself, are the primary factors for referral
'$2oSd for cataract surgery.7 This supports prior research which has
twYB=68 shown that visual acuity is not a strong predictor of need for
"/ a*[_sV cataract surgery.8,9 Elsewhere, socioeconomic status has
?9wFV/ been shown to be related to cataract surgery rates.10
:>AW@SoTp To appropriately plan health care services, information is
hB2s$QS needed about the prevalence of age-related cataract in the
&F<J#cfe8 community as well as the factors associated with cataract
.dg 4gr\D surgery. The purpose of this study is to quantify the prevalence
G>_42Rp of any cataract in Australia, to describe the factors
-6em*$k^ related to unoperated cataract in the community and to
: e0R7sj describe the visual outcomes of cataract surgery.
N$ qNe'b METHODS
/`j K Study population
Lv, ji_ Details about the study methodology for the Visual
L8?Z!0D/h Impairment Project have been published previously.11
^%4(
%68 Briefly, cluster sampling within three strata was employed to
@LkW_ recruit subjects aged 40 years and over to participate.
%DND&0` Within the Melbourne Statistical Division, nine pairs of
6%ti B? census collector districts were randomly selected. Fourteen
2Xj-A\Oh~ nursing homes within a 5 km radius of these nine test sites
W O \lny! were randomly chosen to recruit nursing home residents.
$V {- @= Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology (2000) 28, 77–82
[r~rIb%Zj Original Article
6!Tf'#TV~! Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia
(J,Oh Catherine A McCarty PhD, MPH, Mukesh B Nanjan PhD, Hugh R Taylor MD
^&G O4u Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
te)g',#lT n Correspondence: Dr Cathy McCarty MPH, Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, 32 Gisborne Street, East Melbourne,
JY050FL Victoria 3002, Australia. Email:
cathy@cera.unimelb.edu.au ;uWIl 78 McCarty et al.
-WHwz m Finally, four pairs of census collector districts in four rural
tB(X`A.| Victorian communities were randomly selected to recruit rural
['N#aDh.? residents. A household census was conducted to identify
;xkf?| eligible residents aged 40 years and over who had been a
r{:la56Xd resident at that address for at least 6 months. At the time of
cX=b q_ the household census, basic information about age, sex,
NYV0<z@M2M country of birth, language spoken at home, education, use of
},QFyT corrective spectacles and use of eye care services was collected.
ewff(e9 Eligible residents were then invited to attend a local
WZO
0u examination site for a more detailed interview and examination.
W!9f'Yn The study protocol was approved by the Royal Victorian
s].Cx4VQ Eye and Ear Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee.
U>M>FZ Assessment of cataract
_xwfz]lb+ A standardized ophthalmic examination was performed after
Uc;IPS pupil dilatation with one drop of 10% phenylephrine
I)4|?tb? hydrochloride. Lens opacities were graded clinically at the
|8?{JK
sg time of the examination and subsequently from photos using
f2K3*}P the Wilmer cataract photo-grading system.12 Cortical and
;iI2K/ 3 posterior subcapsular (PSC) opacities were assessed on
/u1zRw retroillumination and measured as the proportion (in 1/16)
Xpz-@fqKdf of pupil circumference occupied by opacity. For this analysis,
`)_FO]m}jS cortical cataract was defined as 4/16 or greater opacity,
*wl_8Sis} PSC cataract was defined as opacity equal to or greater than
S^_yiV
S 1 mm2 and nuclear cataract was defined as opacity equal to
XSIO0ep or greater than Wilmer standard 2,12 independent of visual
d`*vJ#$>2 acuity. Examples of the minimum opacities defined as cortical,
J\},o|WI nuclear and PSC cataract are presented in Figure 1.
!: [`
V!{ Bilateral congenital cataracts or cataracts secondary to
-2XIF}.Hu intraocular inflammation or trauma were excluded from the
\3UdC{~ analysis. Two cases of bilateral secondary cataract and eight
g)Uh
cases of bilateral congenital cataract were excluded from the
sMo%Ayes analyses.
C!A_PQ2y A Topcon® SL5 photo slit-lamp (Topcon America Corp.,
SQRz8,sqkw Paramus, NJ, USA) with a 0.1 mm slit beam of 9.0 mm in
2^j9m}` height set to an incident angle of 30° was used for examinations.
x@x@0k`
A2 Ektachrome® 200 ASA colour slide film (Eastman
3@A k6Uh Kodak Company, Rochester, NY, USA) was used to photograph
Sa(rl^qZ2 the nuclear opacities. The cortical opacities were
:"^$7 photographed with an Oxford® retroillumination camera
W12K93tO (Marcher Enterprises Ltd, Hereford, UK) and T-MAX® 400
2Ki/K( film (Eastman Kodak). Photographs were graded separately
a&PZ7!PZv by two research assistants and discrepancies were adjudicated
Ke!O^zP92 by an independent reviewer. Any discrepancies
n*uZ=M_/Q between the clinical grades and the photograph grades were
!Hg#c!eOg resolved. Except in cases where photographs were missing,
(x!bZ,fu the photograph grades were used in the analyses. Photograph
gA*zFhGVS7 grades were available for 4301 (84%) for cortical
^6n]@
4P cataract, 4147 (81%) for nuclear cataract and 4303 (84%)
bvKi0- for PSC cataract. Cataract status was classified according to
z@j&vW the severity of the opacity in the worse eye.
&3. 8i% Assessment of risk factors
}mK_d9d x A standardized questionnaire was used to obtain information
!{LwX Kf about education, employment and ethnic background.11
b/`'?|
C Specific information was elicited on the occurrence, duration
Q[^d{e*l and treatment of a number of medical conditions,
`pr,lL including ocular trauma, arthritis, diabetes, gout, hypertension
Zuf&maa S and mental illness. Information about the use, dose and
:gn!3P}p? duration of tobacco, alcohol, analgesics and steriods were
ty
?y&~axk collected, and a food frequency questionnaire was used to
#Bjnz$KB determine current consumption of dietary sources of antioxidants
Hl51R"8o and use of vitamin supplements.
fQdQ[ Data management and statistical analysis
KAGq\7 Data were collected either by direct computer entry with a
z!tHn# questionnaire programmed in Paradox© (Carel Corporation,
d>f5Tl\E Ottawa, Canada) with internal consistency checks, or
MLl:)W* on self-coding forms. Open-ended responses were coded at
\BA_PyS?W+ a later time. Data that were entered on the self-coded forms
LdcP0G\"VG were entered into a computer with double data entry and
rBaK$Ut reconciliation of any inconsistencies. Data range and consistency
\VW.>@s~ checks were performed on the entire data set.
ufmFeeg SAS© version 6.1 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina) was
1-`8v[S employed for statistical analyses.
iVA_a8} Ninety-five per cent confidence limits around the agespecific
n']@Sp
m rates were calculated according to Cochran13 to
XS>4efCJ
account for the effect of the cluster sampling. Ninety-five
*<KY^; per cent confidence limits around age-standardized rates
x
\lua were calculated according to Breslow and Day.14 The strataspecific
]C_6I\Z#=W data were weighted according to the 1996
|@ia(U~ Australian Bureau of Statistics census data15 to reflect the
!JJY(o cataract prevalence in the entire Victorian population.
3=`UX Univariate analyses with Student’s t-tests and chi-squared
uu HWN| tests were first employed to evaluate risk factors for unoperated
UJO+7h' cataract. Any factors with P < 0.10 were then fitted
*M&~R(TMn into a backwards stepwise logistic regression model. For the
778a)ZOzb Figure 1. Minimum levels of cortical (a), nuclear (b), and posterior subcapsular (c) cataract.
8L0#<"'0 final multivariate models, P < 0.05 was considered statistically
g=b'T- significant. Design effect was assessed through the use
(xMAo;s_ of cluster-specific models and multivariate models. The
,w
c|YI)E design effect was assumed to be additive and an adjustment
zvE]4}VL? made in the variance by adding the variance associated with
w<>B4
m\ the design effect prior to constructing the 95% confidence
1_%3cN. limits.
hCM+=]z" RESULTS
<.#i3! Study population
K-sJnQ23' A total of 3271 (83%) of the Melbourne residents, 403
u`7\o~$ (90%) Melbourne nursing home residents, and 1473 (92%)
uPt({H rural residents participated. In general, non-participants did
PU[]
Nw not differ from participants.16 The study population was
4;y*y tY* representative of the Victorian population and Australia as
?$%#y u#. a whole.
0;KjP?5 The Melbourne residents ranged in age from 40 to
Zg_ fec~6q 98 years (mean = 59) and 1511 (46%) were male. The
i1}Y;mj Melbourne nursing home residents ranged in age from 46 to
2XNO*zbve 101 years (mean = 82) and 85 (21%) were men. The rural
w`x4i fZ0q residents ranged in age from 40 to 103 years (mean = 60)
J4"?D9T3G and 701 (47.5%) were men.
Z7J8%ywQ Prevalence of cataract and prior cataract surgery
c>mTd{Abi As would be expected, the rate of any cataract increases
t}w<xe dramatically with age (Table 1). The weighted rate of any
5bBY[qp cataract in Victoria was 21.5% (95% CL 18.1, 24.9).
$MhfGMk!' Although the rates varied somewhat between the three
VN]70LFz*i strata, they were not significantly different as the 95% confidence
\I"n~h^_ limits overlapped. The per cent of cataractous eyes
%0&59q]LM with best-corrected visual acuity of less than 6/12 was 12.5%
@^R6}qJ (65/520) for cortical cataract, 18% for nuclear cataract
hX4V}kj (97/534) and 14.4% (27/187) for PSC cataract. Cataract
a!guZUg6 surgery also rose dramatically with age. The overall
P.#@1_:gC weighted rate of prior cataract surgery in Victoria was
h\-3Y U 3.79% (95% CL 2.97, 4.60) (Table 2).
q!f'?yFYK Risk factors for unoperated cataract
*E.uqu>I Cases of cataract that had not been removed were classified
T$!Pkdh as unoperated cataract. Risk factor analyses for unoperated
OJ?U."Lxm$ cataract were not performed with the nursing home residents
1EiSxf as information about risk factor exposure was not
)kIZmQ|f1 available for this cohort. The following factors were assessed
Xx,Rah)X3 in relation to unoperated cataract: age, sex, residence
pgd9_'[5 (urban/rural), language spoken at home (a measure of ethnic
Fe1^9ja integration), country of birth, parents’ country of birth (a
fL(_V/p^ measure of ethnicity), years since migration, education, use
dt5`UBvUg of ophthalmic services, use of optometric services, private
Qa#Em1co health insurance status, duration of distance glasses use,
g|Xjw Ti8$ glaucoma, age-related maculopathy and employment status.
ovk^ In this cross sectional study it was not possible to assess the
[hJASX9 level of visual acuity that would predict a patient’s having
6GMwB@ b cataract surgery, as visual acuity data prior to cataract
&8HJ4Vj2 surgery were not available.
~--b#o{ The significant risk factors for unoperated cataract in univariate
:Qu.CvYF analyses were related to: whether a participant had
Hy1pIUsx ever seen an optometrist, seen an ophthalmologist or been
C]a iu diagnosed with glaucoma; and participants’ employment
@NYlVk2 status (currently employed) and age. These significant
zP>=K factors were placed in a backwards stepwise logistic regression
{!*dk
V model. The factors that remained significantly related
GLA4O) to unoperated cataract were whether participants had ever
U]Fnf?( seen an ophthalmologist, seen an optometrist and been
0Wb3M"#9< diagnosed with glaucoma. None of the demographic factors
2Uy}#n|)r were associated with unoperated cataract in the multivariate
:+<GJj_d+ model.
j34lPo ` The per cent of participants with unoperated cataract
K7},X01^ who said that they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with
ug?#Oa Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia 79
m88[(l Table 1. Prevalence of any cataracta (excluding previous cataract surgery) by age, gender and cohort
\G
CT3$ Age group Sex Urban Rural Nursing home Weighted total
X?SLYm@v (years) (%) (%) (%)
p><DA fB 40–49 Male 2.56 4.04 0.00 3.00 (1.91, 4.08)
98%6Z8AS6U Female 2.61 1.70 0.00 2.36 (1.61, 3.10)
++CL0S$e 50–59 Male 7.69 6.94 0.00 7.47 (5.80, 9.15)
QD^"cPC)mM Female 6.67 7.56 0.00 6.92 (5.60, 8.24)
~!ICBF~j 60–69 Male 20.7 25.0 10.0 22.0 (18.1, 26.0)
wi S8S{K5 Female 27.9 35.7 37.5 30.3 (26.0, 34.7)
E akS(Q? 70–79 Male 43.1 58.7 39.1 48.1 (41.2, 55.1)
qD>D Female 58.6 66.2 55.6 61.0 (56.0, 65.9)
1#jvr_ ga 80–89 Male 74.0 89.3 92.0 79.3 (72.3, 86.3)
!gG\jC~n Female 91.9 97.0 80.2 92.6 (86.4, 98.8)
)q'~<QxI\ 90 + Male 100.0 100.0 75.0 98.8 (96.2, 100.0)
YbE1yOJ&m Female 100.0 100.0 93.8 98.6 (97.0, 100.0)
BX
X1G Age-standardized
Lz;E/a}s (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)
;AE%f.Y aCortical > 4/16, nuclear > standard 2, posterior subcapsular > 1 mm2
U4,hEnJBT their current vision was 30% (290/683), compared with 27%
dIDs~ (26/95) of participants with prior cataract surgery (chisquared,
U-GV^j
1 d.f. = 0.25, P = 0.62).
# fl%~Y Outcomes of cataract surgery
m#(ve1E Two hundred and forty-nine eyes had undergone prior
ti9cfv> cataract surgery. Of these 249 operated eyes, 49 (20%) were
$;t#pN/` left aphakic, 6 (2.4%) had anterior chamber intraocular
rCO:39L- lenses and 194 (78%) had posterior chamber intraocular
hy|X(m lenses. The rate of capsulotomy in the eyes with intact
[/I1%6; posterior capsules was 36% (73/202). Fifteen per cent of
$[P>nRhW eyes (17/114) with a clear posterior capsule had bestcorrected
rKys:is visual acuity of less than 6/12 compared with 43%
O[fgn;@| of eyes (6/14) with opaque capsules, and 15% of eyes
0yxMIX (11/73) with prior capsulotomies (chi-squared, 2 d.f. = 7.21,
!j.jvI%e; P = 0.027).
zorTZ #5 The percentage of eyes with best-corrected visual acuity
xbA% 'p of 6/12 or better was 96% (302/314) for eyes without
'2%/h4jY cataract, 88% (1417/1609) for eyes with prevalent cataract
\$h LhYz- and 85% (211/249) for eyes with operated cataract (chisquared,
, e
ZL&n 2 d.f. = 22.3), P < 0.001). Twenty-seven of the
oa?eK operated eyes (11%) had visual acuities of less than 6/18
bMD'teJ (moderate vision impairment) (Fig. 2). A cause of this
|8"~o u:. moderate visual impairment (but not the only cause) in four
?WX&,ew~ (15%) eyes was secondary to cataract surgery. Three of these
<nj[=C4v four eyes had undergone intracapsular cataract extraction
?Ib/}JST and the fourth eye had an opaque posterior capsule. No one
%Ys>PzM had bilateral vision impairment as a result of their cataract
Tc)T0dRP surgery.
.so{ RI DISCUSSION
dTaR8i To our knowledge, this is the first paper to systematically
2`vCQV assess the prevalence of current cataract, previous cataract
)B*?se]LJ surgery, predictors of unoperated cataract and the outcomes
)
ZOmv of cataract surgery in a population-based sample. The Visual
$#@4i4TN- Impairment Project is unique in that the sampling frame and
`z)!!y high response rate have ensured that the study population is
{zUc*9
representative of Australians aged 40 years and over. Therefore,
".xai.trr these data can be used to plan age-related cataract
uU.9*B=H9 services throughout Australia.
&,."=G We found the rate of any cataract in those over the age
y=vH8D]%X of 40 years to be 22%. Although relatively high, this rate is
q 8=u.T significantly less than was reported in a number of previous
;$&-c/]F# studies,2,4,6 with the exception of the Casteldaccia Eye
}h_Op7.5D Study.5 However, it is difficult to compare rates of cataract
?3}UO:B between studies because of different methodologies and
rY!uc! cataract definitions employed in the various studies, as well
pXFNK"jm as the different age structures of the study populations.
@IiT8B Other studies have used less conservative definitions of
0"2 [I cataract, thus leading to higher rates of cataract as defined.
(C-z8R
Z6 In most large epidemiologic studies of cataract, visual acuity
u=E?N:I~F has not been included in the definition of cataract.
p fBO5Ys Therefore, the prevalence of cataract may not reflect the
"DlCvjc actual need for cataract surgery in the community.
oo Z-T>$ 80 McCarty et al.
,\IqKRcYU Table 2. Prevalence of previous cataract by age, gender and cohort
hx^a&" Age group Gender Urban Rural Nursing home Weighted total
kuH;AMdv (years) (%) (%) (%)
Nu_w@T\l 40–49 Male 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.80 (0.00, 1.81)
*c AoE l Female 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (
4iLU "~ 50–59 Male 0.68 0.58 0.00 0.65 (0.13, 1.17)
]~q
N<x Female 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.41 (0.00, 1.00)
y:A0!75 60–69 Male 2.12 7.59 0.00 3.80 (1.41, 6.19)
=wj~6:Bf Female 2.11 3.51 0.00 2.54 (1.81, 3.26)
eYcx+BJ 70–79 Male 8.22 9.85 8.70 8.75 (6.38, 11.1)
lXPn]iLJ Female 7.21 7.86 7.02 7.41 (5.36, 9.46)
vLS9V/o 80–89 Male 25.0 30.0 14.3 26.2 (17.0, 35.4)
DrEtnt Female 27.9 25.6 18.3 26.7 (20.2, 33.3)
&tgvE6/V 90 + Male 0.00 16.7 66.7 9.19 (0.00, 21.5)
P\s+2/ Female 58.3 100.0 26.9 63.1 (44.4, 81.8)
Qwa"AY5pW Age-standardized
O0{ (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)
}}1/Ede{5 Figure 2. Visual acuity in eyes that had undergone cataract
NNE,|
: surgery, n = 249. h, Presenting; j, best-corrected.
wY.g-3 Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia 81
+zdkdS,2< The weighted prevalence of prior cataract surgery in the
5lxq-E3 Visual Impairment Project (3.6%) was similar to the crude
5tU"|10m3 rate in the Beaver Dam Eye Study4 (3.1%), but less than the
12PE{Mut crude rate in the Blue Mountains Eye Study6 (6.0%).
3=l-jGJk However, the age-standardized rate in the Blue Mountains
\r%Vgne-g Eye Study (standardized to the age distribution of the urban
6h_ k`z Visual Impairment Project cohort) was found to be less than
NydW9r:T the Visual Impairment Project (standardized rate = 1.36%,
Zax]i,Bx 95% CL 1.25, 1.47). The incidence of cataract surgery in
$l;tP Australia has exceeded population growth.1 This is due,
W79A4l< perhaps, to advances in surgical techniques and lens
&&
nO]p` implants that have changed the risk–benefit ratio.
'%!M>rY, The Global Initiative for the Elimination of Avoidable
FFeRE{,
Blindness, sponsored by the World Health Organization,
`O=;E`ep states that cataract surgical services should be provided that
/Tf*d>Yh; ‘have a high success rate in terms of visual outcome and
`/JR}g{O improved quality of life’,17 although the ‘high success rate’ is
q3-;}+ not defined. Population- and clinic-based studies conducted
_Q}RElA in the United States have demonstrated marked improvement
C$RAJ in visual acuity following cataract surgery.18–20 We
ROt0<^< found that 85% of eyes that had undergone cataract extraction
=E}%>un had visual acuity of 6/12 or better. Previously, we have
\m~\,em shown that participants with prevalent cataract in this
UE,~_hp cohort are more likely to express dissatisfaction with their
8P<UO current vision than participants without cataract or participants
88np/jvC{ with prior cataract surgery.21 In a national study in the
h>^jq{yu United States, researchers found that the change in patients’
K?Xo3W%K ratings of their vision difficulties and satisfaction with their
P$6f +{ vision after cataract surgery were more highly related to
&X]=Qpl their change in visual functioning score than to their change
x:n9dm in visual acuity.19 Furthermore, improvement in visual function
kJvy<(iG has been shown to be associated with improvement in
#1jtprc overall quality of life.22
K*_{Rs0P A recent review found that the incidence of visually
Ef_F#X0# significant posterior capsule opacification following
_Xk03\n6 cataract surgery to be greater than 25%.23 We found 36%
V^Mf4!A(y capsulotomy in our population and that this was associated
}[KDE{,V with visual acuity similar to that of eyes with a clear
JhhU
g capsule, but significantly better than that of eyes with an
38*'8=Y#> opaque capsule.
TJyH/C A number of studies have shown that the demand and
N
o_$!)J. timing of cataract surgery vary according to visual acuity,
/Oq
)3fU
e degree of handicap and socioeconomic factors.8–10,24,25 We
#7-kL7 MK] have also shown previously that ophthalmologists are more
k%Ma4_Z likely to refer a patient for cataract surgery if the patient is
*
w'q employed and less likely to refer a nursing home resident.7
xs2,t*
In the Visual Impairment Project, we did not find that any
|5}rX!wS4 particular subgroup of the population was at greater risk of
RV0>-@/x having unoperated cataract. Universal access to health care
.g/ARwM} in Australia may explain the fact that people without
YM# Medicare are more likely to delay cataract operations in the
l)tTg+: USA,8 but not having private health insurance is not associated
e5qrQwU with unoperated cataract in Australia.
=_$XP In summary, cataract is a significant public health problem
la
G$v-r in that one in four people in their 80s will have had cataract
#dva0%-1 surgery. The importance of age-related cataract surgery will
Fb<n0[m increase further with the ageing of the population: the
I! h(` number of people over age 60 years is expected to double in
U}tl_5%) the next 20 years. Cataract surgery services are well
0K=Qf69Y accessed by the Victorian population and the visual outcomes
F^ I\X of cataract surgery have been shown to be very good.
! (2-(LgA These data can be used to plan for age-related cataract
Z~r[;={, surgical services in Australia in the future as the need for
Jt##rVN cataract extractions increases.
BQyvj\uJ ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Ze-MAt The Visual Impairment Project was funded in part by grants
7cIC&(h5 from the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, the
v#RW{kI National Health and Medical Research Council, the Ansell
/h/6&R0l Ophthalmology Foundation, the Dorothy Edols Estate and
;*y|8od
B the Jack Brockhoff Foundation. Dr McCarty is the recipient
'Pf_5q of a Wagstaff Fellowship in Ophthalmology from the Royal
=kd YN5R Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital.
o[o:A|n REFERENCES
CV s8s 1. Keeffe JE, Taylor HR. Cataract surgery in Australia 1985–94.
OQ6sv/ Aust. N.Z. J. Ophthalmol. 1996; 24: 313–17.
d4%dIR) 2. Sperduto RD, Hiller R. The prevalence of nuclear, cortical,
?8Et[tFg and posterior subcapsular lens opacities in a general population
2-~a
P sample. Ophthalmology 1984; 91: 815–18.
+L0J_.5%^ 3. Maraini G, Pasquini P, Sperduto RD et al. Distribution of lens
t)ld<9)eB opacities in the Italian-American case–control study of agerelated
Y[Es cataract. Ophthalmology 1990; 97: 752–6.
qh-[L 4. Klein BEK, Klein R, Linton KLP. Prevalence of age-related
:y\09)CJK lens opacities in a population. The Beaver Dam Eye Study.
hm3jpWi8 Ophthalmology 1992; 99: 546–52.
cS}r9gaQ 5. Guiffrè G, Giammanco R, Di Pace F, Ponte F. Casteldaccia eye
e&2wdH& study: prevalence of cataract in the adult and elderly population
B20_ig: of a Mediterranean town. Int. Ophthalmol. 1995; 18:
!h>D;k6 e 363–71.
]M3#3Ha" 6. Mitchell P, Cumming RG, Attebo K, Panchapakesan J.
#XI"@pD Prevalence of cataract in Australia. The Blue Mountains Eye
M/{g(|{ Study. Ophthalmology 1997; 104: 581–8.
NhA#bn9y? 7. Keeffe JE, McCarty CA, Chang WP, Steinberg EP, Taylor HR.
)r9b:c\ Relative importance of VA, patient concern and patient
&!jq!u$( lifestyle on referral for cataract surgery. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis.
x l0DN{PG Sci. 1996; 37: S183.
4<.O+hS
8. Curbow B, Legro MW, Brenner MH. The influence of patientrelated
5lTD]d variables in the timing of cataract extraction. Am. J.
tWY2o3j Ophthalmol. 1993; 115: 614–22.
Ax!Gu$K2o 9. Sletteberg OH, Høvding G, Bertelsen T. Do we operate too
6z?gg3GV many cataracts? The referred cataract patients’ own appraisal
t};~H\: of their need for surgery. Acta Ophthalmol. Scand. 1995; 73:
&[@\ f^~ 77–80.
3bs4mCq 10. Escarce JJ. Would eliminating differences in physician practice
q* !3C style reduce geographic variations in cataract surgery rates?
hV
P
IHQt Med. Care 1993; 31: 1106–18.
kIvvEh<L= 11. Livingston PM, Carson CA, Stanislavsky YL, Lee SE, Guest
^Y04qeRd CS, Taylor HR. Methods for a population-based study of eye
?_q+&)4-o disease: the Melbourne Visual Impairment Project. Ophthalmic
],lV}Mlg* Epidemiol. 1994; 1: 139–48.
6)e5zKW!? 12. Taylor HR, West SK. A simple system for the clinical grading
[pgZbOIN37 of lens opacities. Lens Res. 1988; 5: 175–81.
v27Ja .tA 82 McCarty et al.
.Q&rfH3 13. Cochran WG. Sampling Techniques. New York: John Wiley &
Vq ^]s$' Sons, 1977; 249–73.
q\$6F)ha3 14. Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical Methods in Cancer Research. Volume
u&]vd / II – the Design and Analysis of Cohort Studies. Lyon: International
8#LJ* o Agency for Research on Cancer; 1987; 52–61.
XnUO*v^] 15. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 1996 Census of Population and
uDayBaR Housing. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1997.
V#83! 16. Livingston PM, Lee SE, McCarty CA, Taylor HR. A comparison
rdJB*Rlkh of participants with non-participants in a populationbased
I&]G epidemiologic study: the Melbourne Visual Impairment
MZv\ C Project. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 1997; 4: 73–82.
S>_27r{ 17. Programme for the Prevention of Blindness. Global Initiative for the
B|o%_:]+E Elimination of Avoidable Blindness. Geneva: World Health
#y; yN7W Organization, 1997.
g9mG`f 18. Applegate WB, Miller ST, Elam JT, Freeman JM, Wood TO,
svhrf;3: Gettlefinger TC. Impact of cataract surgery with lens implantation
yA7)Y})> on vision and physical function in elderly patients.
cT'w= JAMA 1987; 257: 1064–6.
,x_Z JL 19. Steinberg EP, Tielsch JM, Schein OD et al. National Study of
>Pal H24] Cataract Surgery Outcomes. Variation in 4-month postoperative
z&+
zl6 outcomes as reflected in multiple outcome measures.
TI9X.E? Ophthalmology 1994; 101:1131–41.
h)x_zZ%>o 20. Klein BEK, Klein R, Moss SE. Change in visual acuity associated
FJS'G^ with cataract surgery. The Beaver Dam Eye Study.
TZB+lj1 Ophthalmology 1996; 103: 1727–31.
.p@N
:)W6 21. McCarty CA, Keeffe JE, Taylor HR. The need for cataract
4A.Q21s surgery: projections based on lens opacity, visual acuity, and
-l*g~7|j personal concern. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1999; 83: 62–5.
Omyt2`q 22. Brenner MH, Curbow B, Javitt JC, Legro MW, Sommer A.
:BZ0 7`9 Vision change and quality of life in the elderly. Response to
I4e+$bU3 cataract surgery and treatment of other ocular conditions.
gA^q^>7 Arch. Ophthalmol. 1993; 111: 680–5.
Y& {|Sw7? 23. Schaumberg DA, Dana MR, Christen WG, Glynn RJ. A
k`YYZt]@ systematic overview of the incidence of posterior capsule
5vOC CW opacification. Ophthalmology 1998; 105: 1213–21.
$&{IKP)u 24. Mordue A, Parkin DW, Baxter C, Fawcett G, Stewart M.
b-<HXn_Fd Thresholds for treatment in cataract surgery. J. Public Health
pB01J<@m Med. 1994; 16: 393–8.
_%pAlo_6 25. Norregaard JC, Bernth-Peterson P, Alonso J et al. Variations in
H~fdbR indications for cataract surgery in the United States, Denmark,
hC<14 Canada, and Spain: results from the International Cataract
;#QhQx Surgery Outcomes Study. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1998; 82: 1107–11.