ABSTRACT
~V|!\CB Purpose: To quantify the prevalence of cataract, the outcomes
.N+xpxdG, of cataract surgery and the factors related to
~fUSmc unoperated cataract in Australia.
Ti/iD2g Methods: Participants were recruited from the Visual
RU>vnDaC Impairment Project: a cluster, stratified sample of more than
jN<]yhqf 5000 Victorians aged 40 years and over. At examination
6 aK
--k sites interviews, clinical examinations and lens photography
h1gb&?w5P were performed. Cataract was defined in participants who
SmLYxH3F had: had previous cataract surgery, cortical cataract greater
i-=ff than 4/16, nuclear greater than Wilmer standard 2, or
&Egn`QU posterior subcapsular greater than 1 mm2.
1!C,pXU#: Results: The participant group comprised 3271 Melbourne
<Ztda ! residents, 403 Melbourne nursing home residents and 1473
7 r<>^j' rural residents.The weighted rate of any cataract in Victoria
;VH]TKkk was 21.5%. The overall weighted rate of prior cataract
&e)p6Egl surgery was 3.79%. Two hundred and forty-nine eyes had
w+Z};C had prior cataract surgery. Of these 249 procedures, 49
2r0!h98 (20%) were aphakic, 6 (2.4%) had anterior chamber
6K y;1$ intraocular lenses and 194 (78%) had posterior chamber
3d<HIG^W} intraocular lenses.Two hundred and eleven of these operated
4a |Fx eyes (85%) had best-corrected visual acuity of 6/12 or
yfW^wyDd2o better, the legal requirement for a driver’s license.Twentyseven
*;d)'7< (11%) had visual acuity of less than 6/18 (moderate
Z4-dF;7 vision impairment). Complications of cataract surgery
F)5Aq H/p caused reduced vision in four of the 27 eyes (15%), or 1.9%
#G=QL(f>/ of operated eyes. Three of these four eyes had undergone
4<K`yU]" intracapsular cataract extraction and the fourth eye had an
=4
H K opaque posterior capsule. No one had bilateral vision
eM"mP&TTL impairment as a result of cataract surgery. Surprisingly, no
L
_y|l5 particular demographic factors (such as age, gender, rural
j*`!o/=LI residence, occupation, employment status, health insurance
N6[^62 status, ethnicity) were related to the presence of unoperated
~?5m5z O cataract.
&FVlTo1 Conclusions: Although the overall prevalence of cataract is
q$rA-`jw quite high, no particular subgroup is systematically underserviced
5O W(] y| in terms of cataract surgery. Overall, the results of
d@4!^vD; cataract surgery are very good, with the majority of eyes
TkoXzG8yE< achieving driving vision following cataract extraction.
jFTV\|C Key words: cataract extraction, health planning, health
kw:D~E( services accessibility, prevalence
8m6 nw0 INTRODUCTION
y( Cataract is the leading cause of blindness worldwide and, in
3a}`xCO5 Australia, cataract extractions account for the majority of all
5 hadA>d ophthalmic procedures.1 Over the period 1985–94, the rate
:fVMM7 of cataract surgery in Australia was twice as high as would be
p-r%MnT expected from the growth in the elderly population.1
SvP\JQ<c Although there have been a number of studies reporting
,HkhK bQ the prevalence of cataract in various populations,2–6 there is
1 "7#|=1/ little information about determinants of cataract surgery in
F'$S!K58 the population. A previous survey of Australian ophthalmologists
vW-`=30 showed that patient concern and lifestyle, rather
)$h9Y than visual acuity itself, are the primary factors for referral
M6*{#Y? for cataract surgery.7 This supports prior research which has
~yH>Ko9F} shown that visual acuity is not a strong predictor of need for
H!.D2J cataract surgery.8,9 Elsewhere, socioeconomic status has
<4e*3WSG been shown to be related to cataract surgery rates.10
)c >B23D To appropriately plan health care services, information is
G0
/vn9& needed about the prevalence of age-related cataract in the
c_bVF 'Bz community as well as the factors associated with cataract
mhLRi\[c ) surgery. The purpose of this study is to quantify the prevalence
2C]la of any cataract in Australia, to describe the factors
jJ"EGFa8 related to unoperated cataract in the community and to
"SU-^z describe the visual outcomes of cataract surgery.
m?VRX.> METHODS
_=*tDa Study population
:-\ yy Details about the study methodology for the Visual
42>m,fb2[ Impairment Project have been published previously.11
}t
51U0b% Briefly, cluster sampling within three strata was employed to
<
VaMUm<2 recruit subjects aged 40 years and over to participate.
{rvbo1t Within the Melbourne Statistical Division, nine pairs of
!UMo4}Y census collector districts were randomly selected. Fourteen
\
FoxKOTp nursing homes within a 5 km radius of these nine test sites
^~6] 0$yJ were randomly chosen to recruit nursing home residents.
sjzXJ`s Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology (2000) 28, 77–82
X
s>s|_T Original Article
~kYqGH Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia
rFq@]t3q Catherine A McCarty PhD, MPH, Mukesh B Nanjan PhD, Hugh R Taylor MD
SE^b0ZV*x Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
.^LL9{? n Correspondence: Dr Cathy McCarty MPH, Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, 32 Gisborne Street, East Melbourne,
@v~Pwr! Victoria 3002, Australia. Email:
cathy@cera.unimelb.edu.au PyMVTP4 78 McCarty et al.
]`@]<6 Finally, four pairs of census collector districts in four rural
O5^J!(.O\Z Victorian communities were randomly selected to recruit rural
wt}%2x} x residents. A household census was conducted to identify
nQ642i%RQ eligible residents aged 40 years and over who had been a
o'eI(@{F= resident at that address for at least 6 months. At the time of
$Pd|6 the household census, basic information about age, sex,
bR'mV-2' country of birth, language spoken at home, education, use of
afY _9g!\ corrective spectacles and use of eye care services was collected.
|}M0,AS Eligible residents were then invited to attend a local
;vJ\]T ml examination site for a more detailed interview and examination.
Q=(@K4 The study protocol was approved by the Royal Victorian
-SvTg{Q{la Eye and Ear Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee.
"]T$\PJun Assessment of cataract
pgLtD};S A standardized ophthalmic examination was performed after
lMC{SfdH pupil dilatation with one drop of 10% phenylephrine
[0&'cu> hydrochloride. Lens opacities were graded clinically at the
X&(<G time of the examination and subsequently from photos using
+}^|dkc the Wilmer cataract photo-grading system.12 Cortical and
Vd+td;9( posterior subcapsular (PSC) opacities were assessed on
#bT8QbJ( retroillumination and measured as the proportion (in 1/16)
>Mvka;T] of pupil circumference occupied by opacity. For this analysis,
*u>lx!g cortical cataract was defined as 4/16 or greater opacity,
-<qxO PSC cataract was defined as opacity equal to or greater than
1 -ZJT 1 mm2 and nuclear cataract was defined as opacity equal to
]~-*hOcQ4 or greater than Wilmer standard 2,12 independent of visual
&{%MjKJ._ acuity. Examples of the minimum opacities defined as cortical,
VF)uu[
f9 nuclear and PSC cataract are presented in Figure 1.
-2F@~m| Bilateral congenital cataracts or cataracts secondary to
KRY
cCn intraocular inflammation or trauma were excluded from the
AR%hf analysis. Two cases of bilateral secondary cataract and eight
@}<"N cases of bilateral congenital cataract were excluded from the
~>V-*NT8 analyses.
VFv9Q2/. A Topcon® SL5 photo slit-lamp (Topcon America Corp.,
N.Dhu ~V Paramus, NJ, USA) with a 0.1 mm slit beam of 9.0 mm in
w
|_GV}#_ height set to an incident angle of 30° was used for examinations.
v:KX9A. Ektachrome® 200 ASA colour slide film (Eastman
H@{Objh1 Kodak Company, Rochester, NY, USA) was used to photograph
h#i\iK&A the nuclear opacities. The cortical opacities were
b"``D ? photographed with an Oxford® retroillumination camera
x97L6! (Marcher Enterprises Ltd, Hereford, UK) and T-MAX® 400
z3a-+NjD m film (Eastman Kodak). Photographs were graded separately
-hWC_X:9jP by two research assistants and discrepancies were adjudicated
TyF{tuF by an independent reviewer. Any discrepancies
<I;5wv between the clinical grades and the photograph grades were
GnFs63 resolved. Except in cases where photographs were missing,
XS?gn.o\ the photograph grades were used in the analyses. Photograph
z}ElpT[(; grades were available for 4301 (84%) for cortical
P;vxT}1 cataract, 4147 (81%) for nuclear cataract and 4303 (84%)
I&Jt> O4 for PSC cataract. Cataract status was classified according to
jd 1jG2=f the severity of the opacity in the worse eye.
q-nER< Assessment of risk factors
B**Nn!}0 A standardized questionnaire was used to obtain information
%,\=s.~1 about education, employment and ethnic background.11
vJ"i.:Gf4 Specific information was elicited on the occurrence, duration
5t\HJ`C1Z and treatment of a number of medical conditions,
dAc ?O-~ including ocular trauma, arthritis, diabetes, gout, hypertension
NjX[;e-u and mental illness. Information about the use, dose and
h}Rx_d duration of tobacco, alcohol, analgesics and steriods were
cWMUj K/N collected, and a food frequency questionnaire was used to
9sSN<7 determine current consumption of dietary sources of antioxidants
~`qEWvPn and use of vitamin supplements.
wN97_Y=`n Data management and statistical analysis
bFY~oa%C Data were collected either by direct computer entry with a
xCXQ<77 questionnaire programmed in Paradox© (Carel Corporation,
d(-EcY>? Ottawa, Canada) with internal consistency checks, or
:@eHX& on self-coding forms. Open-ended responses were coded at
.@#A|fgv a later time. Data that were entered on the self-coded forms
8w_7O>9 were entered into a computer with double data entry and
=wVJ% reconciliation of any inconsistencies. Data range and consistency
h|D
0z_f checks were performed on the entire data set.
VwyVEZt SAS© version 6.1 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina) was
SmhGZ
employed for statistical analyses.
_,haD)1g~ Ninety-five per cent confidence limits around the agespecific
3BG>Y(v rates were calculated according to Cochran13 to
lk3=4|?zsE account for the effect of the cluster sampling. Ninety-five
tyh@^7 per cent confidence limits around age-standardized rates
v+G=E2Lhv were calculated according to Breslow and Day.14 The strataspecific
YJ_\Ns+Ow data were weighted according to the 1996
j8Cho5C Australian Bureau of Statistics census data15 to reflect the
=Yz'D|=t cataract prevalence in the entire Victorian population.
Q >Qibr Univariate analyses with Student’s t-tests and chi-squared
[ sF(#Y:I tests were first employed to evaluate risk factors for unoperated
l+*&:Q/ cataract. Any factors with P < 0.10 were then fitted
GZip\S4Y into a backwards stepwise logistic regression model. For the
*.#oxcll Figure 1. Minimum levels of cortical (a), nuclear (b), and posterior subcapsular (c) cataract.
*=AqM14 @ final multivariate models, P < 0.05 was considered statistically
q_kdCO{:df significant. Design effect was assessed through the use
s{0aBeq of cluster-specific models and multivariate models. The
m3bCZ9iE design effect was assumed to be additive and an adjustment
!-<p,z made in the variance by adding the variance associated with
4_A0rveP the design effect prior to constructing the 95% confidence
iOAbaPN limits.
T*g:#
^4 RESULTS
a2IgC25 Study population
':{>a28= A total of 3271 (83%) of the Melbourne residents, 403
21hv%CF\9 (90%) Melbourne nursing home residents, and 1473 (92%)
)R`x R,H rural residents participated. In general, non-participants did
ApBWuXp|u not differ from participants.16 The study population was
#$1Z representative of the Victorian population and Australia as
`F<jLU^3 a whole.
(T`E!A0I\? The Melbourne residents ranged in age from 40 to
f+8wl!M+6 98 years (mean = 59) and 1511 (46%) were male. The
8>hwK )av Melbourne nursing home residents ranged in age from 46 to
IxLhU45 101 years (mean = 82) and 85 (21%) were men. The rural
_XCOSomL` residents ranged in age from 40 to 103 years (mean = 60)
hxQqa 0B and 701 (47.5%) were men.
nRyU]=-X Prevalence of cataract and prior cataract surgery
&f-Uyr7? As would be expected, the rate of any cataract increases
_ODbY;M dramatically with age (Table 1). The weighted rate of any
lXcx@#~ cataract in Victoria was 21.5% (95% CL 18.1, 24.9).
Ym3\pRFiD Although the rates varied somewhat between the three
KQB3m" strata, they were not significantly different as the 95% confidence
*98$dQR$ limits overlapped. The per cent of cataractous eyes
phM>.y_ with best-corrected visual acuity of less than 6/12 was 12.5%
5[c^TJ3 (65/520) for cortical cataract, 18% for nuclear cataract
ty8v
6J# (97/534) and 14.4% (27/187) for PSC cataract. Cataract
|yx6X{$k surgery also rose dramatically with age. The overall
FCnm1x#
weighted rate of prior cataract surgery in Victoria was
On?p 9^9 3.79% (95% CL 2.97, 4.60) (Table 2).
z11O
F Risk factors for unoperated cataract
\otWd Cases of cataract that had not been removed were classified
e)(wss+d7P as unoperated cataract. Risk factor analyses for unoperated
4O35"1 cataract were not performed with the nursing home residents
v%q0OX>9X" as information about risk factor exposure was not
c@8 93<_
available for this cohort. The following factors were assessed
"1%5, in relation to unoperated cataract: age, sex, residence
>r !|sC (urban/rural), language spoken at home (a measure of ethnic
"'t0h{Wr8 integration), country of birth, parents’ country of birth (a
9b9$GyI measure of ethnicity), years since migration, education, use
b:TLV`>/& of ophthalmic services, use of optometric services, private
~^1 {B\I health insurance status, duration of distance glasses use,
Fvbh\m
~ glaucoma, age-related maculopathy and employment status.
FY#C.mL In this cross sectional study it was not possible to assess the
?vbvBu{a level of visual acuity that would predict a patient’s having
~XOTs cataract surgery, as visual acuity data prior to cataract
]GW]dM surgery were not available.
ui/a|Q The significant risk factors for unoperated cataract in univariate
y~U #veY analyses were related to: whether a participant had
oU.R2\
Q ever seen an optometrist, seen an ophthalmologist or been
4bYK}o
S diagnosed with glaucoma; and participants’ employment
KV0]m^@x status (currently employed) and age. These significant
@U& QI* factors were placed in a backwards stepwise logistic regression
62ws/8d6f model. The factors that remained significantly related
hvsWs.;L' to unoperated cataract were whether participants had ever
RwpdRBb seen an ophthalmologist, seen an optometrist and been
,)Znb= diagnosed with glaucoma. None of the demographic factors
HMh"}I2n were associated with unoperated cataract in the multivariate
o <pf#tifv model.
Bf ~vA4 The per cent of participants with unoperated cataract
e#$]Y?, who said that they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with
LnH ?dy Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia 79
s@K4u^$A Table 1. Prevalence of any cataracta (excluding previous cataract surgery) by age, gender and cohort
\o*5 Age group Sex Urban Rural Nursing home Weighted total
KY$)#i (years) (%) (%) (%)
i:Y^{\Z?V 40–49 Male 2.56 4.04 0.00 3.00 (1.91, 4.08)
QI'Oz{vE Female 2.61 1.70 0.00 2.36 (1.61, 3.10)
[+n*~ 50–59 Male 7.69 6.94 0.00 7.47 (5.80, 9.15)
A$Hfr8w1u Female 6.67 7.56 0.00 6.92 (5.60, 8.24)
k@ RDvn 60–69 Male 20.7 25.0 10.0 22.0 (18.1, 26.0)
FWrX3i Female 27.9 35.7 37.5 30.3 (26.0, 34.7)
!Qu"BF 70–79 Male 43.1 58.7 39.1 48.1 (41.2, 55.1)
-#u=\8 Female 58.6 66.2 55.6 61.0 (56.0, 65.9)
'YmIKIw 80–89 Male 74.0 89.3 92.0 79.3 (72.3, 86.3)
6t[+pL\b Female 91.9 97.0 80.2 92.6 (86.4, 98.8)
R
O+GK`J 90 + Male 100.0 100.0 75.0 98.8 (96.2, 100.0)
tkeoNuAM Female 100.0 100.0 93.8 98.6 (97.0, 100.0)
2_HNhW
Age-standardized
6-N?mSQU (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)
{FeDvhv aCortical > 4/16, nuclear > standard 2, posterior subcapsular > 1 mm2
e^6)Zz1\ their current vision was 30% (290/683), compared with 27%
>JHryS.j$4 (26/95) of participants with prior cataract surgery (chisquared,
+h|`/ &, 1 d.f. = 0.25, P = 0.62).
^ Edfv5 Outcomes of cataract surgery
DR5\45v Two hundred and forty-nine eyes had undergone prior
yj 3cyLXw cataract surgery. Of these 249 operated eyes, 49 (20%) were
3`t#UY).F left aphakic, 6 (2.4%) had anterior chamber intraocular
PxWT1 ! lenses and 194 (78%) had posterior chamber intraocular
Ra)
3+M!x lenses. The rate of capsulotomy in the eyes with intact
!![DJ
posterior capsules was 36% (73/202). Fifteen per cent of
H%qsjB^ eyes (17/114) with a clear posterior capsule had bestcorrected
RIWxs Zt visual acuity of less than 6/12 compared with 43%
^S4d:-.3 of eyes (6/14) with opaque capsules, and 15% of eyes
`06;
(11/73) with prior capsulotomies (chi-squared, 2 d.f. = 7.21,
jFQQ`O V P = 0.027).
jwc)Lj} The percentage of eyes with best-corrected visual acuity
[%"|G9 of 6/12 or better was 96% (302/314) for eyes without
CpUkCgg cataract, 88% (1417/1609) for eyes with prevalent cataract
8g@<d^8@ and 85% (211/249) for eyes with operated cataract (chisquared,
b z`+ k,* 2 d.f. = 22.3), P < 0.001). Twenty-seven of the
y`Wty@ operated eyes (11%) had visual acuities of less than 6/18
27eooY1 (moderate vision impairment) (Fig. 2). A cause of this
.0zY}` moderate visual impairment (but not the only cause) in four
ity & v9 (15%) eyes was secondary to cataract surgery. Three of these
vv72x] four eyes had undergone intracapsular cataract extraction
l5S aT,% and the fourth eye had an opaque posterior capsule. No one
@6Y?\Wx$w had bilateral vision impairment as a result of their cataract
QyEnpZ8?a surgery.
z Xg3[orF DISCUSSION
zU5v /'h>d To our knowledge, this is the first paper to systematically
29;?I3<
* assess the prevalence of current cataract, previous cataract
q$0*b]=E surgery, predictors of unoperated cataract and the outcomes
O*hDbM2QQw of cataract surgery in a population-based sample. The Visual
N H[kNi' Impairment Project is unique in that the sampling frame and
1T"`vtR high response rate have ensured that the study population is
}s7$7 representative of Australians aged 40 years and over. Therefore,
UFXaEl}R these data can be used to plan age-related cataract
A!od9W6 services throughout Australia.
/Wi[OT14 We found the rate of any cataract in those over the age
a!zz6/q[ of 40 years to be 22%. Although relatively high, this rate is
9&$y
}Y significantly less than was reported in a number of previous
4Gk
WRu1 studies,2,4,6 with the exception of the Casteldaccia Eye
JB%',J Study.5 However, it is difficult to compare rates of cataract
.
.IfP@ between studies because of different methodologies and
Q1U\D cataract definitions employed in the various studies, as well
aZH:#lUlj as the different age structures of the study populations.
1auIR/=- Other studies have used less conservative definitions of
j
b!x: cataract, thus leading to higher rates of cataract as defined.
$jjfC In most large epidemiologic studies of cataract, visual acuity
BGvre'67 has not been included in the definition of cataract.
qEyyT[: Therefore, the prevalence of cataract may not reflect the
g?c
xp+ actual need for cataract surgery in the community.
|J1$=s 80 McCarty et al.
5[8xV%>; Table 2. Prevalence of previous cataract by age, gender and cohort
6gL#C& Age group Gender Urban Rural Nursing home Weighted total
*^\Ef4Lh (years) (%) (%) (%)
6]&OrS[ 40–49 Male 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.80 (0.00, 1.81)
x!?u^ Female 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (
w x ]0p 50–59 Male 0.68 0.58 0.00 0.65 (0.13, 1.17)
uF X#`^r` Female 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.41 (0.00, 1.00)
l3{-z4mw 60–69 Male 2.12 7.59 0.00 3.80 (1.41, 6.19)
KWq+PeB5TS Female 2.11 3.51 0.00 2.54 (1.81, 3.26)
Giid~e33 70–79 Male 8.22 9.85 8.70 8.75 (6.38, 11.1)
N+9VYH"* Female 7.21 7.86 7.02 7.41 (5.36, 9.46)
zUt'QH7E. 80–89 Male 25.0 30.0 14.3 26.2 (17.0, 35.4)
mu\6z_e Female 27.9 25.6 18.3 26.7 (20.2, 33.3)
7!evm;A 90 + Male 0.00 16.7 66.7 9.19 (0.00, 21.5)
ADz ^\ Female 58.3 100.0 26.9 63.1 (44.4, 81.8)
>,v`EI
g Age-standardized
|O{m2Fi (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)
%p Ynnfr Figure 2. Visual acuity in eyes that had undergone cataract
,bZL C surgery, n = 249. h, Presenting; j, best-corrected.
]>W6
bTK Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia 81
FDv<\2+ c The weighted prevalence of prior cataract surgery in the
GiJ *Wp Visual Impairment Project (3.6%) was similar to the crude
-m\u rate in the Beaver Dam Eye Study4 (3.1%), but less than the
v>6"j1Z crude rate in the Blue Mountains Eye Study6 (6.0%).
^dI424 However, the age-standardized rate in the Blue Mountains
;/bewivNJ Eye Study (standardized to the age distribution of the urban
bc7/V#W Visual Impairment Project cohort) was found to be less than
S~<$Hy*kh the Visual Impairment Project (standardized rate = 1.36%,
99]R$eT8 95% CL 1.25, 1.47). The incidence of cataract surgery in
0^v`T%|fTX Australia has exceeded population growth.1 This is due,
AKY1o.>z perhaps, to advances in surgical techniques and lens
#"}
JdBn implants that have changed the risk–benefit ratio.
`b?R#:G The Global Initiative for the Elimination of Avoidable
W1WYej" Blindness, sponsored by the World Health Organization,
2kqu p)82e states that cataract surgical services should be provided that
u6J8"<
-W ‘have a high success rate in terms of visual outcome and
#./fY;:cj improved quality of life’,17 although the ‘high success rate’ is
w3N[9w?1 not defined. Population- and clinic-based studies conducted
%3s1z<;R[S in the United States have demonstrated marked improvement
#`~C)=- in visual acuity following cataract surgery.18–20 We
QfmJn(( found that 85% of eyes that had undergone cataract extraction
S};#+ufgTt had visual acuity of 6/12 or better. Previously, we have
&`h{iK7 shown that participants with prevalent cataract in this
\h
+AXs<j cohort are more likely to express dissatisfaction with their
Upx G@b current vision than participants without cataract or participants
E!;SL|lj. with prior cataract surgery.21 In a national study in the
G
%BjhpL United States, researchers found that the change in patients’
-6Z\qxKqZ ratings of their vision difficulties and satisfaction with their
-7SAK1c$ vision after cataract surgery were more highly related to
__uA}fZp their change in visual functioning score than to their change
Ii6<b6- in visual acuity.19 Furthermore, improvement in visual function
]{!U@b has been shown to be associated with improvement in
ag;Q F overall quality of life.22
2{D{sa A recent review found that the incidence of visually
u\a#{G;Z significant posterior capsule opacification following
'-QwssE cataract surgery to be greater than 25%.23 We found 36%
9y6-/H
, capsulotomy in our population and that this was associated
ih)zG with visual acuity similar to that of eyes with a clear
oVnvO iAc capsule, but significantly better than that of eyes with an
-N6f1>}pE opaque capsule.
}q`ts=dlGt A number of studies have shown that the demand and
Y1L[;)H n timing of cataract surgery vary according to visual acuity,
2uzW+D6J degree of handicap and socioeconomic factors.8–10,24,25 We
8Pfb~&X^Ws have also shown previously that ophthalmologists are more
Q}`0W[a
~ likely to refer a patient for cataract surgery if the patient is
s kvGU(G} employed and less likely to refer a nursing home resident.7
2$9odD<r In the Visual Impairment Project, we did not find that any
ZLc -RM particular subgroup of the population was at greater risk of
gK_Ymq5>"M having unoperated cataract. Universal access to health care
C7XxFh in Australia may explain the fact that people without
Ut*`:]la Medicare are more likely to delay cataract operations in the
vhe>)h*B USA,8 but not having private health insurance is not associated
2^Eg9y' with unoperated cataract in Australia.
1!ii;s^e In summary, cataract is a significant public health problem
z[LNf.)} in that one in four people in their 80s will have had cataract
XQ#;Zs/l surgery. The importance of age-related cataract surgery will
!-ok"k0,u increase further with the ageing of the population: the
t;\kR4P number of people over age 60 years is expected to double in
2 X.r%&!1M the next 20 years. Cataract surgery services are well
nx@=>E+a accessed by the Victorian population and the visual outcomes
r/4``shg of cataract surgery have been shown to be very good.
wZG\>9~ These data can be used to plan for age-related cataract
ccNd'2P surgical services in Australia in the future as the need for
_?<|{O cataract extractions increases.
^.1)};i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
u0 P|0\ The Visual Impairment Project was funded in part by grants
7[w,:9& } from the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, the
RdWRWxTn8+ National Health and Medical Research Council, the Ansell
N<|@y
mi Ophthalmology Foundation, the Dorothy Edols Estate and
O|\J}rm' the Jack Brockhoff Foundation. Dr McCarty is the recipient
dUsYZdQs of a Wagstaff Fellowship in Ophthalmology from the Royal
+lm{Olm'^ Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital.
C+'/>=>a. REFERENCES
LyZ.l*h%=m 1. Keeffe JE, Taylor HR. Cataract surgery in Australia 1985–94.
,3?Q(=j Aust. N.Z. J. Ophthalmol. 1996; 24: 313–17.
$RYa6"` 2. Sperduto RD, Hiller R. The prevalence of nuclear, cortical,
^]7}YF2| and posterior subcapsular lens opacities in a general population
*$yR*}A sample. Ophthalmology 1984; 91: 815–18.
M}d_I+ 3. Maraini G, Pasquini P, Sperduto RD et al. Distribution of lens
AB=daie opacities in the Italian-American case–control study of agerelated
_XG/Pp) cataract. Ophthalmology 1990; 97: 752–6.
y6LWx: 4. Klein BEK, Klein R, Linton KLP. Prevalence of age-related
M*!agh lens opacities in a population. The Beaver Dam Eye Study.
Xp >7
iX!: Ophthalmology 1992; 99: 546–52.
sA/pVU 5. Guiffrè G, Giammanco R, Di Pace F, Ponte F. Casteldaccia eye
|*:'TKzNS study: prevalence of cataract in the adult and elderly population
@$lG@I,[ of a Mediterranean town. Int. Ophthalmol. 1995; 18:
UADFnwR[R 363–71.
m4aB*6<lq 6. Mitchell P, Cumming RG, Attebo K, Panchapakesan J.
1HXjN~XF Prevalence of cataract in Australia. The Blue Mountains Eye
oz AS[B6 Study. Ophthalmology 1997; 104: 581–8.
hHN'w73z 7. Keeffe JE, McCarty CA, Chang WP, Steinberg EP, Taylor HR.
-j%,
Oo Relative importance of VA, patient concern and patient
^=T$&gD lifestyle on referral for cataract surgery. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis.
xGu r Sci. 1996; 37: S183.
+,2:g}5 8. Curbow B, Legro MW, Brenner MH. The influence of patientrelated
ugo.@
variables in the timing of cataract extraction. Am. J.
aEM %R<e Ophthalmol. 1993; 115: 614–22.
_(Sa4Vb=Q6 9. Sletteberg OH, Høvding G, Bertelsen T. Do we operate too
K&nE_.kbl many cataracts? The referred cataract patients’ own appraisal
_jJPbKz of their need for surgery. Acta Ophthalmol. Scand. 1995; 73:
74H)|Dkx 77–80.
9S-Z&2L 10. Escarce JJ. Would eliminating differences in physician practice
|o{:ZmzM style reduce geographic variations in cataract surgery rates?
OZx
W?wnd Med. Care 1993; 31: 1106–18.
<\Eh1[F 11. Livingston PM, Carson CA, Stanislavsky YL, Lee SE, Guest
ERpnuM
b CS, Taylor HR. Methods for a population-based study of eye
T.@aep\" disease: the Melbourne Visual Impairment Project. Ophthalmic
&=#[(vl Epidemiol. 1994; 1: 139–48.
i
7_ _ 12. Taylor HR, West SK. A simple system for the clinical grading
~Q?a|mV, of lens opacities. Lens Res. 1988; 5: 175–81.
*RXbc~
H 82 McCarty et al.
qR(\5} 13. Cochran WG. Sampling Techniques. New York: John Wiley &
e?opkq\f Sons, 1977; 249–73.
Q7R~{5r>W 14. Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical Methods in Cancer Research. Volume
TR<<+ II – the Design and Analysis of Cohort Studies. Lyon: International
9A}# 6 Agency for Research on Cancer; 1987; 52–61.
6b+b/>G0 15. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 1996 Census of Population and
OJ/,pLYu Housing. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1997.
)#.<]&P } 16. Livingston PM, Lee SE, McCarty CA, Taylor HR. A comparison
X=hYB}}nu of participants with non-participants in a populationbased
<z]cyXv/ epidemiologic study: the Melbourne Visual Impairment
ANJ$'3tg Project. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 1997; 4: 73–82.
C!Rs^/ 17. Programme for the Prevention of Blindness. Global Initiative for the
kBYNf = Elimination of Avoidable Blindness. Geneva: World Health
ROk5]b. Organization, 1997.
NbC@z9Q 18. Applegate WB, Miller ST, Elam JT, Freeman JM, Wood TO,
P^w#S Gettlefinger TC. Impact of cataract surgery with lens implantation
T-5nB>) on vision and physical function in elderly patients.
r.#t63Rb JAMA 1987; 257: 1064–6.
"NgxkbDEbG 19. Steinberg EP, Tielsch JM, Schein OD et al. National Study of
4d8B`Fa9 Cataract Surgery Outcomes. Variation in 4-month postoperative
VwOW=4`6 outcomes as reflected in multiple outcome measures.
O+?<h{" Ophthalmology 1994; 101:1131–41.
:lB=Lr) 20. Klein BEK, Klein R, Moss SE. Change in visual acuity associated
fcNL$U&-,i with cataract surgery. The Beaver Dam Eye Study.
o'W5|Gy Ophthalmology 1996; 103: 1727–31.
blTo5NLX 21. McCarty CA, Keeffe JE, Taylor HR. The need for cataract
r
:F
surgery: projections based on lens opacity, visual acuity, and
CAcS~ " personal concern. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1999; 83: 62–5.
JMH8MH* 22. Brenner MH, Curbow B, Javitt JC, Legro MW, Sommer A.
-PS#Z0> Vision change and quality of life in the elderly. Response to
%n
hm cataract surgery and treatment of other ocular conditions.
n@
U n Arch. Ophthalmol. 1993; 111: 680–5.
q|Q k2M 23. Schaumberg DA, Dana MR, Christen WG, Glynn RJ. A
N5i+3& systematic overview of the incidence of posterior capsule
?Rj ~f{%g opacification. Ophthalmology 1998; 105: 1213–21.
}; f#^gz' 24. Mordue A, Parkin DW, Baxter C, Fawcett G, Stewart M.
Xtp"QY
p Thresholds for treatment in cataract surgery. J. Public Health
#B:hPZM1 Med. 1994; 16: 393–8.
4\6N~P86 25. Norregaard JC, Bernth-Peterson P, Alonso J et al. Variations in
J2j U4mR indications for cataract surgery in the United States, Denmark,
(;q\}u Canada, and Spain: results from the International Cataract
d1U\ft:gV Surgery Outcomes Study. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1998; 82: 1107–11.