ABSTRACT
vQG5*pR*w Purpose: To quantify the prevalence of cataract, the outcomes
3Y4?CM&0v of cataract surgery and the factors related to
#FLb*%Nr unoperated cataract in Australia.
wQl
, Methods: Participants were recruited from the Visual
H064BM Impairment Project: a cluster, stratified sample of more than
S&5&];Ag 5000 Victorians aged 40 years and over. At examination
Wx%H%FeK sites interviews, clinical examinations and lens photography
_#E
0g'3 were performed. Cataract was defined in participants who
Vi$~-6n& had: had previous cataract surgery, cortical cataract greater
IZ-1c1
than 4/16, nuclear greater than Wilmer standard 2, or
q s!j>x posterior subcapsular greater than 1 mm2.
G^|:N[>B Results: The participant group comprised 3271 Melbourne
m]0;"jeL residents, 403 Melbourne nursing home residents and 1473
WF+99?75 rural residents.The weighted rate of any cataract in Victoria
np^N8$i:n was 21.5%. The overall weighted rate of prior cataract
.WJYQi surgery was 3.79%. Two hundred and forty-nine eyes had
z=\&i\>;Z+ had prior cataract surgery. Of these 249 procedures, 49
vkV0On (20%) were aphakic, 6 (2.4%) had anterior chamber
2DDtu[} intraocular lenses and 194 (78%) had posterior chamber
Xf]d. : intraocular lenses.Two hundred and eleven of these operated
dh iuI|?@ eyes (85%) had best-corrected visual acuity of 6/12 or
3BUSv#w{i better, the legal requirement for a driver’s license.Twentyseven
q-2Bt,Y (11%) had visual acuity of less than 6/18 (moderate
hpX9[3 vision impairment). Complications of cataract surgery
9d659iC caused reduced vision in four of the 27 eyes (15%), or 1.9%
13=AW of operated eyes. Three of these four eyes had undergone
ORw,)l intracapsular cataract extraction and the fourth eye had an
AM \'RHL opaque posterior capsule. No one had bilateral vision
(NU
NHxi5B impairment as a result of cataract surgery. Surprisingly, no
Y\k#*\'Y~ particular demographic factors (such as age, gender, rural
&i6mW8l residence, occupation, employment status, health insurance
5r|,CQ7o status, ethnicity) were related to the presence of unoperated
n5NsmVW \x cataract.
}@+0/
W?\. Conclusions: Although the overall prevalence of cataract is
lvz7#f L~ quite high, no particular subgroup is systematically underserviced
.@U@xRu7| in terms of cataract surgery. Overall, the results of
\V8PhO;j cataract surgery are very good, with the majority of eyes
LckK\`mh achieving driving vision following cataract extraction.
zu{P#~21 Key words: cataract extraction, health planning, health
PiIpnoM services accessibility, prevalence
?P`K7 INTRODUCTION
1};Stai'
Cataract is the leading cause of blindness worldwide and, in
<0&*9ZeD Australia, cataract extractions account for the majority of all
E
A1?)|}n ophthalmic procedures.1 Over the period 1985–94, the rate
v MH of cataract surgery in Australia was twice as high as would be
WlC:l expected from the growth in the elderly population.1
DU/] Although there have been a number of studies reporting
X *"i6* the prevalence of cataract in various populations,2–6 there is
SsDmoEeB[ little information about determinants of cataract surgery in
*H2r@)Y[~ the population. A previous survey of Australian ophthalmologists
G@X% +$I showed that patient concern and lifestyle, rather
"_NN3lD)X than visual acuity itself, are the primary factors for referral
WO>nIo5Y for cataract surgery.7 This supports prior research which has
,m|h<faZL shown that visual acuity is not a strong predictor of need for
{]@= ijjf cataract surgery.8,9 Elsewhere, socioeconomic status has
EUX\^c]n been shown to be related to cataract surgery rates.10
aSQ#k;T[ To appropriately plan health care services, information is
Vv=. -&' needed about the prevalence of age-related cataract in the
,<P
vovg_ community as well as the factors associated with cataract
qt"m surgery. The purpose of this study is to quantify the prevalence
3~{:`[0Q of any cataract in Australia, to describe the factors
[]1C$.5DD related to unoperated cataract in the community and to
V&2l5v describe the visual outcomes of cataract surgery.
w;amZgD> METHODS
3bH'H*2 Study population
Om2d.7S Details about the study methodology for the Visual
=X:Y,? Impairment Project have been published previously.11
_A9AEi'. Briefly, cluster sampling within three strata was employed to
>}i E( recruit subjects aged 40 years and over to participate.
bK&+5t& Within the Melbourne Statistical Division, nine pairs of
fr6fj census collector districts were randomly selected. Fourteen
33B]R
Gq nursing homes within a 5 km radius of these nine test sites
4!no~ $b were randomly chosen to recruit nursing home residents.
7;wd(
8 Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology (2000) 28, 77–82
( ^Nz9{ Original Article
+',S]Edx Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia
=GMkR+<) Catherine A McCarty PhD, MPH, Mukesh B Nanjan PhD, Hugh R Taylor MD
hMD|#A-
< Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
c 3)jccWTc n Correspondence: Dr Cathy McCarty MPH, Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, 32 Gisborne Street, East Melbourne,
c4eBt))}V Victoria 3002, Australia. Email:
cathy@cera.unimelb.edu.au fuf"Ae 78 McCarty et al.
Bn&ze.F Finally, four pairs of census collector districts in four rural
Z,Dl` w Victorian communities were randomly selected to recruit rural
VTY 5]|; residents. A household census was conducted to identify
S3Xl eligible residents aged 40 years and over who had been a
^o&. fQ* resident at that address for at least 6 months. At the time of
0)Wltw~`& the household census, basic information about age, sex,
60?%<oJ oH country of birth, language spoken at home, education, use of
MeZf*'
J corrective spectacles and use of eye care services was collected.
dJNe+
MB` Eligible residents were then invited to attend a local
"'?>fe\qG examination site for a more detailed interview and examination.
_ZSR.w}j/ The study protocol was approved by the Royal Victorian
]2qo+yB Eye and Ear Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee.
DT&@
^$? Assessment of cataract
t!7-DF|N A standardized ophthalmic examination was performed after
?) d~cJ pupil dilatation with one drop of 10% phenylephrine
LG#t<5y~ hydrochloride. Lens opacities were graded clinically at the
$X,D( time of the examination and subsequently from photos using
88wa7i* the Wilmer cataract photo-grading system.12 Cortical and
oE]QF.n# posterior subcapsular (PSC) opacities were assessed on
d<P\&!R( retroillumination and measured as the proportion (in 1/16)
' %o#q6O of pupil circumference occupied by opacity. For this analysis,
or}[h09qA cortical cataract was defined as 4/16 or greater opacity,
!%%6dB@%t PSC cataract was defined as opacity equal to or greater than
*VxgARIL 1 mm2 and nuclear cataract was defined as opacity equal to
T{[=oH+ or greater than Wilmer standard 2,12 independent of visual
-m~#Bq acuity. Examples of the minimum opacities defined as cortical,
oe-\ozJ0 nuclear and PSC cataract are presented in Figure 1.
Qh\60f>0 Bilateral congenital cataracts or cataracts secondary to
T1=fNF intraocular inflammation or trauma were excluded from the
JY(WK@ analysis. Two cases of bilateral secondary cataract and eight
49HZ2`Y cases of bilateral congenital cataract were excluded from the
c'yxWZEv analyses.
*VT/ A Topcon® SL5 photo slit-lamp (Topcon America Corp.,
*b\t#meS& Paramus, NJ, USA) with a 0.1 mm slit beam of 9.0 mm in
ePo}y])2 height set to an incident angle of 30° was used for examinations.
O3kA;[f; Ektachrome® 200 ASA colour slide film (Eastman
P@c5pc#| Kodak Company, Rochester, NY, USA) was used to photograph
=Jb>x#Y the nuclear opacities. The cortical opacities were
c9h6C photographed with an Oxford® retroillumination camera
c\AfaK^KF (Marcher Enterprises Ltd, Hereford, UK) and T-MAX® 400
$*fMR,~t& film (Eastman Kodak). Photographs were graded separately
7hPY_W
y by two research assistants and discrepancies were adjudicated
?.BC#S)q1 by an independent reviewer. Any discrepancies
#KZBsa@p between the clinical grades and the photograph grades were
97!;.f- resolved. Except in cases where photographs were missing,
-nV9:opD the photograph grades were used in the analyses. Photograph
9 djk[ttA) grades were available for 4301 (84%) for cortical
gRcQt : cataract, 4147 (81%) for nuclear cataract and 4303 (84%)
KPUV@eQ, for PSC cataract. Cataract status was classified according to
Pa:|_IXA the severity of the opacity in the worse eye.
'!B&:X) Assessment of risk factors
c@L< Z` u A standardized questionnaire was used to obtain information
dG ?*y about education, employment and ethnic background.11
7WzxA=*# Specific information was elicited on the occurrence, duration
4;2uW#dG" and treatment of a number of medical conditions,
dioGAai' including ocular trauma, arthritis, diabetes, gout, hypertension
a/xn'"eli and mental illness. Information about the use, dose and
gL
/9/b4 duration of tobacco, alcohol, analgesics and steriods were
j8:\%| collected, and a food frequency questionnaire was used to
'i|YlMFI g determine current consumption of dietary sources of antioxidants
M x"\5i and use of vitamin supplements.
{Ou1KDy#) Data management and statistical analysis
aV0"~5 Data were collected either by direct computer entry with a
b4Ekqas questionnaire programmed in Paradox© (Carel Corporation,
S~G]~g
t Ottawa, Canada) with internal consistency checks, or
>9Vn.S on self-coding forms. Open-ended responses were coded at
,zY{ a later time. Data that were entered on the self-coded forms
MVUJD{X# were entered into a computer with double data entry and
A?OQE9' reconciliation of any inconsistencies. Data range and consistency
}"%N4(Kd checks were performed on the entire data set.
6j|{`Zd)G SAS© version 6.1 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina) was
0jWVp-y employed for statistical analyses.
-m#)B~) Ninety-five per cent confidence limits around the agespecific
gI|~|-' rates were calculated according to Cochran13 to
cPQiUU~W@ account for the effect of the cluster sampling. Ninety-five
vW@=<aS Z per cent confidence limits around age-standardized rates
?:9"X$XR were calculated according to Breslow and Day.14 The strataspecific
[{/jI\?v data were weighted according to the 1996
C9)@jK% Australian Bureau of Statistics census data15 to reflect the
d2L&Z_} cataract prevalence in the entire Victorian population.
[mueZQyI?0 Univariate analyses with Student’s t-tests and chi-squared
|;{6&S tests were first employed to evaluate risk factors for unoperated
>=w)x,0yX cataract. Any factors with P < 0.10 were then fitted
O^rD HFj, into a backwards stepwise logistic regression model. For the
|JsZJ9W+J Figure 1. Minimum levels of cortical (a), nuclear (b), and posterior subcapsular (c) cataract.
KqP#6^ _ final multivariate models, P < 0.05 was considered statistically
uhq8 significant. Design effect was assessed through the use
RPbZ(. of cluster-specific models and multivariate models. The
2st3 design effect was assumed to be additive and an adjustment
IdN41 made in the variance by adding the variance associated with
V|R,!UND the design effect prior to constructing the 95% confidence
m(P]k'ZH? limits.
g0E'g RESULTS
:rP=t , Study population
iU:cW=W|M\ A total of 3271 (83%) of the Melbourne residents, 403
{K!)Ss (90%) Melbourne nursing home residents, and 1473 (92%)
bW:!5"_{H rural residents participated. In general, non-participants did
>@Kx>cg+ not differ from participants.16 The study population was
|1Z)E+q*: representative of the Victorian population and Australia as
-F3-{E a whole.
NCD04U5y The Melbourne residents ranged in age from 40 to
#p{4^ 98 years (mean = 59) and 1511 (46%) were male. The
wKY_Bo/d Melbourne nursing home residents ranged in age from 46 to
A?0Nm{O;3v 101 years (mean = 82) and 85 (21%) were men. The rural
^kSqsT" residents ranged in age from 40 to 103 years (mean = 60)
BL4-7 and 701 (47.5%) were men.
$Z>'Jp Prevalence of cataract and prior cataract surgery
A<fG}q1# As would be expected, the rate of any cataract increases
:fJN->wY^s dramatically with age (Table 1). The weighted rate of any
rW#T
vUn cataract in Victoria was 21.5% (95% CL 18.1, 24.9).
N)Z?Z+}
h Although the rates varied somewhat between the three
nT)vNWT= strata, they were not significantly different as the 95% confidence
4`=mu}Y2 limits overlapped. The per cent of cataractous eyes
]{>,rK[So with best-corrected visual acuity of less than 6/12 was 12.5%
3= ;<$+I6 (65/520) for cortical cataract, 18% for nuclear cataract
7o}J%z (97/534) and 14.4% (27/187) for PSC cataract. Cataract
cl/_JQ& surgery also rose dramatically with age. The overall
7>*vI7O0l weighted rate of prior cataract surgery in Victoria was
[a<SDMR 3.79% (95% CL 2.97, 4.60) (Table 2).
-|9=P\U8S Risk factors for unoperated cataract
v(%*b,^
Cases of cataract that had not been removed were classified
r,2g^K)6 as unoperated cataract. Risk factor analyses for unoperated
An/|+r\ cataract were not performed with the nursing home residents
'/%
H3A#L as information about risk factor exposure was not
p{dj~ &v available for this cohort. The following factors were assessed
,"79P/C in relation to unoperated cataract: age, sex, residence
a"u0Q5J (urban/rural), language spoken at home (a measure of ethnic
kg\>k2h integration), country of birth, parents’ country of birth (a
6D_D' ;o measure of ethnicity), years since migration, education, use
IO:G1;[/2L of ophthalmic services, use of optometric services, private
+x}<IS8 health insurance status, duration of distance glasses use,
6;5Ss?ep glaucoma, age-related maculopathy and employment status.
`5Zz5V In this cross sectional study it was not possible to assess the
lqpp)Cq level of visual acuity that would predict a patient’s having
"@8li^ cataract surgery, as visual acuity data prior to cataract
kB%JNMF{A surgery were not available.
7"D.L-H The significant risk factors for unoperated cataract in univariate
3"\l u?-E analyses were related to: whether a participant had
%D "I ever seen an optometrist, seen an ophthalmologist or been
8, >P diagnosed with glaucoma; and participants’ employment
;i:d+!3XwC status (currently employed) and age. These significant
}*"p?L^p{ factors were placed in a backwards stepwise logistic regression
%H"47ZFxAs model. The factors that remained significantly related
Q&bM\;Ml to unoperated cataract were whether participants had ever
S>1Iky|
seen an ophthalmologist, seen an optometrist and been
KKf
diagnosed with glaucoma. None of the demographic factors
FaJ &GOM, were associated with unoperated cataract in the multivariate
iOO)Q\ model.
SasJic2M The per cent of participants with unoperated cataract
du^J2m{f who said that they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with
*4Y
Vv Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia 79
[!OxZ! Table 1. Prevalence of any cataracta (excluding previous cataract surgery) by age, gender and cohort
5`
: Yye Age group Sex Urban Rural Nursing home Weighted total
1|wL\I (years) (%) (%) (%)
N87B8rDl 40–49 Male 2.56 4.04 0.00 3.00 (1.91, 4.08)
cExS7~* Female 2.61 1.70 0.00 2.36 (1.61, 3.10)
PwLZkr@4^ 50–59 Male 7.69 6.94 0.00 7.47 (5.80, 9.15)
d6 5L!4 Female 6.67 7.56 0.00 6.92 (5.60, 8.24)
~qOa\#x_ 60–69 Male 20.7 25.0 10.0 22.0 (18.1, 26.0)
XpJ7o=?W3 Female 27.9 35.7 37.5 30.3 (26.0, 34.7)
JaGtsi9%. 70–79 Male 43.1 58.7 39.1 48.1 (41.2, 55.1)
wAW5
Z0D Female 58.6 66.2 55.6 61.0 (56.0, 65.9)
I2 P@L?h 80–89 Male 74.0 89.3 92.0 79.3 (72.3, 86.3)
'."ed%=MC Female 91.9 97.0 80.2 92.6 (86.4, 98.8)
ySDH"|0 90 + Male 100.0 100.0 75.0 98.8 (96.2, 100.0)
^r,=vO Female 100.0 100.0 93.8 98.6 (97.0, 100.0)
)+ 2hl Age-standardized
d-dEQKI?; (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)
e**qF=HCw aCortical > 4/16, nuclear > standard 2, posterior subcapsular > 1 mm2
6,{$J their current vision was 30% (290/683), compared with 27%
Y/zj[> (26/95) of participants with prior cataract surgery (chisquared,
WI-1)1t 1 d.f. = 0.25, P = 0.62).
#4 pB@_ Outcomes of cataract surgery
r\V
={p Two hundred and forty-nine eyes had undergone prior
W9GVt$T7 cataract surgery. Of these 249 operated eyes, 49 (20%) were
'(|ofJe! left aphakic, 6 (2.4%) had anterior chamber intraocular
WEi2=3dV lenses and 194 (78%) had posterior chamber intraocular
B,epzI lenses. The rate of capsulotomy in the eyes with intact
;@|n @ax posterior capsules was 36% (73/202). Fifteen per cent of
x+@rg];m eyes (17/114) with a clear posterior capsule had bestcorrected
HCC#j9UN6 visual acuity of less than 6/12 compared with 43%
oEZdd#*; of eyes (6/14) with opaque capsules, and 15% of eyes
@i IRmQ (11/73) with prior capsulotomies (chi-squared, 2 d.f. = 7.21,
j\^CV?}sm' P = 0.027).
y/
ef>ZZ The percentage of eyes with best-corrected visual acuity
9m~p0 ILh of 6/12 or better was 96% (302/314) for eyes without
5taT5?n2 cataract, 88% (1417/1609) for eyes with prevalent cataract
1NA.nw. and 85% (211/249) for eyes with operated cataract (chisquared,
Cd}<a?m, 2 d.f. = 22.3), P < 0.001). Twenty-seven of the
)
ahA[ operated eyes (11%) had visual acuities of less than 6/18
);&:9[b_ (moderate vision impairment) (Fig. 2). A cause of this
;u46Z
moderate visual impairment (but not the only cause) in four
mb^~qeRQ (15%) eyes was secondary to cataract surgery. Three of these
0[?Xxk}s0 four eyes had undergone intracapsular cataract extraction
P
P33i@G and the fourth eye had an opaque posterior capsule. No one
)cMh0SGcM1 had bilateral vision impairment as a result of their cataract
S k\K4 surgery.
Sw,+p DISCUSSION
_H7x9
y= To our knowledge, this is the first paper to systematically
N)\.
[v assess the prevalence of current cataract, previous cataract
O) n~](sC\ surgery, predictors of unoperated cataract and the outcomes
C7ScS"~ of cataract surgery in a population-based sample. The Visual
@>2i+)=E5 Impairment Project is unique in that the sampling frame and
c2 C8g1n high response rate have ensured that the study population is
nV/G8SeI representative of Australians aged 40 years and over. Therefore,
=ncVnW{ these data can be used to plan age-related cataract
(2E\p
services throughout Australia.
.:%0E`E We found the rate of any cataract in those over the age
kxI
F#/8 of 40 years to be 22%. Although relatively high, this rate is
3<f}nfB%r? significantly less than was reported in a number of previous
9ZsVy studies,2,4,6 with the exception of the Casteldaccia Eye
paE[rS\ Study.5 However, it is difficult to compare rates of cataract
}?_?V&K| between studies because of different methodologies and
z3m85F%dR cataract definitions employed in the various studies, as well
o&)8o5 as the different age structures of the study populations.
<7Or{:Sc90 Other studies have used less conservative definitions of
bSi%2Onj cataract, thus leading to higher rates of cataract as defined.
Q%f^)HZGR In most large epidemiologic studies of cataract, visual acuity
Eib5 has not been included in the definition of cataract.
d_E/8R_$L Therefore, the prevalence of cataract may not reflect the
jB Z&Ad@e actual need for cataract surgery in the community.
b;W3j 80 McCarty et al.
oC: {aK6\ Table 2. Prevalence of previous cataract by age, gender and cohort
li'YDtMKCY Age group Gender Urban Rural Nursing home Weighted total
:tB1D@Cb6 (years) (%) (%) (%)
Sc1 8dC0 40–49 Male 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.80 (0.00, 1.81)
G kl71VX Female 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (
7yH"l9Z 50–59 Male 0.68 0.58 0.00 0.65 (0.13, 1.17)
PI:4m%[ Female 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.41 (0.00, 1.00)
)D5"ap]fX 60–69 Male 2.12 7.59 0.00 3.80 (1.41, 6.19)
M2>Vj/ Female 2.11 3.51 0.00 2.54 (1.81, 3.26)
z2_*%S@ 70–79 Male 8.22 9.85 8.70 8.75 (6.38, 11.1)
IS{wtuA. Female 7.21 7.86 7.02 7.41 (5.36, 9.46)
v6M6>&RR| 80–89 Male 25.0 30.0 14.3 26.2 (17.0, 35.4)
qYjce]c Female 27.9 25.6 18.3 26.7 (20.2, 33.3)
HV!m8k=6 90 + Male 0.00 16.7 66.7 9.19 (0.00, 21.5)
R'bTN|Cq Female 58.3 100.0 26.9 63.1 (44.4, 81.8)
Bs_s&a> Age-standardized
V6&!
9b (95% CL) Combined 3.31 (2.70, 3.93) 4.36 (2.67, 6.06) 2.26 (0.82, 3.70) 3.79 (2.97, 4.60)
jrlVvzZ Figure 2. Visual acuity in eyes that had undergone cataract
,]ma+(| surgery, n = 249. h, Presenting; j, best-corrected.
D9CaFu Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia 81
t7dt*D_YqK The weighted prevalence of prior cataract surgery in the
nQX:T;WL@ Visual Impairment Project (3.6%) was similar to the crude
8 S:w7Hr rate in the Beaver Dam Eye Study4 (3.1%), but less than the
6S'yZQ|b crude rate in the Blue Mountains Eye Study6 (6.0%).
j9x<Y
] However, the age-standardized rate in the Blue Mountains
1MP~dRZ$ Eye Study (standardized to the age distribution of the urban
o/$} Visual Impairment Project cohort) was found to be less than
L
O_k@3 the Visual Impairment Project (standardized rate = 1.36%,
[fya)} 95% CL 1.25, 1.47). The incidence of cataract surgery in
7 S#J>* Australia has exceeded population growth.1 This is due,
^pAAzr"hv perhaps, to advances in surgical techniques and lens
B4c]}r+ implants that have changed the risk–benefit ratio.
xaq-.IQAM$ The Global Initiative for the Elimination of Avoidable
';w#w<yaI Blindness, sponsored by the World Health Organization,
W+aP}rZm: states that cataract surgical services should be provided that
Ga-k ‘have a high success rate in terms of visual outcome and
<Dl*l{zba improved quality of life’,17 although the ‘high success rate’ is
\%JgH=@
:= not defined. Population- and clinic-based studies conducted
w=0(<s2 in the United States have demonstrated marked improvement
1y4|{7bb in visual acuity following cataract surgery.18–20 We
&=@IzmA found that 85% of eyes that had undergone cataract extraction
7{e
4c had visual acuity of 6/12 or better. Previously, we have
4
x=v?g& shown that participants with prevalent cataract in this
9|^2",V cohort are more likely to express dissatisfaction with their
)#0O>F~ current vision than participants without cataract or participants
$u$!tj with prior cataract surgery.21 In a national study in the
:)-Sk$ United States, researchers found that the change in patients’
=57
>!) ratings of their vision difficulties and satisfaction with their
n$MO4s8) vision after cataract surgery were more highly related to
s[RAHU their change in visual functioning score than to their change
!fV+z%: in visual acuity.19 Furthermore, improvement in visual function
j"t(0m has been shown to be associated with improvement in
^H p; .f. overall quality of life.22
"(3[+W{| A recent review found that the incidence of visually
6C1#/ significant posterior capsule opacification following
1jmjg~W cataract surgery to be greater than 25%.23 We found 36%
A9KET$i@v capsulotomy in our population and that this was associated
m<<+ with visual acuity similar to that of eyes with a clear
fbyd"(V8r capsule, but significantly better than that of eyes with an
e[{0)y>= opaque capsule.
h/QXPdV A number of studies have shown that the demand and
KaLzg5is timing of cataract surgery vary according to visual acuity,
z 4e7PW| degree of handicap and socioeconomic factors.8–10,24,25 We
prUN)r@U
have also shown previously that ophthalmologists are more
n QF(vTDN likely to refer a patient for cataract surgery if the patient is
6gU96Z employed and less likely to refer a nursing home resident.7
o3XvRj In the Visual Impairment Project, we did not find that any
0.Q
Ujw particular subgroup of the population was at greater risk of
,5P0S0*{ having unoperated cataract. Universal access to health care
/m!BY}4W in Australia may explain the fact that people without
=bAx,,D# Medicare are more likely to delay cataract operations in the
~V:\ _{mE USA,8 but not having private health insurance is not associated
IY1//9 with unoperated cataract in Australia.
j}#w)M In summary, cataract is a significant public health problem
Ky`qskvu in that one in four people in their 80s will have had cataract
w$>u b@= surgery. The importance of age-related cataract surgery will
%6t:(z increase further with the ageing of the population: the
3RUy,s number of people over age 60 years is expected to double in
\Zb;'eDv the next 20 years. Cataract surgery services are well
x
o;QCOH accessed by the Victorian population and the visual outcomes
qfX6TV5J}! of cataract surgery have been shown to be very good.
Do9x
XK These data can be used to plan for age-related cataract
a6ekG YW surgical services in Australia in the future as the need for
l&
[O cataract extractions increases.
o]odxr ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
hy9\57_# The Visual Impairment Project was funded in part by grants
[=C6U_vU from the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, the
; cNv\t National Health and Medical Research Council, the Ansell
I2XU(pYU Ophthalmology Foundation, the Dorothy Edols Estate and
S*pGMuui the Jack Brockhoff Foundation. Dr McCarty is the recipient
y4yhF8E>;U of a Wagstaff Fellowship in Ophthalmology from the Royal
L]7=?vN=8 Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital.
53_Hl]#qZ REFERENCES
SV4E0c> 1. Keeffe JE, Taylor HR. Cataract surgery in Australia 1985–94.
@b\$ yB@z Aust. N.Z. J. Ophthalmol. 1996; 24: 313–17.
n>z9K') 2. Sperduto RD, Hiller R. The prevalence of nuclear, cortical,
5#6|j?_a and posterior subcapsular lens opacities in a general population
]U?^hZ_ sample. Ophthalmology 1984; 91: 815–18.
0J*??g-n 3. Maraini G, Pasquini P, Sperduto RD et al. Distribution of lens
%64)(z opacities in the Italian-American case–control study of agerelated
v4<nI;Ux cataract. Ophthalmology 1990; 97: 752–6.
qfF~D0} 4. Klein BEK, Klein R, Linton KLP. Prevalence of age-related
kb%;=t2 lens opacities in a population. The Beaver Dam Eye Study.
a9e>iU Ophthalmology 1992; 99: 546–52.
P.se'z)E 5. Guiffrè G, Giammanco R, Di Pace F, Ponte F. Casteldaccia eye
y`iBFC;_ study: prevalence of cataract in the adult and elderly population
4IK( 7 of a Mediterranean town. Int. Ophthalmol. 1995; 18:
1}+3dB_s 363–71.
Bg=wKwc8 6. Mitchell P, Cumming RG, Attebo K, Panchapakesan J.
UsG~row:! Prevalence of cataract in Australia. The Blue Mountains Eye
cdH>n) Study. Ophthalmology 1997; 104: 581–8.
5PCqYN(:B 7. Keeffe JE, McCarty CA, Chang WP, Steinberg EP, Taylor HR.
>IafUy Relative importance of VA, patient concern and patient
W ~<^L\Lu lifestyle on referral for cataract surgery. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis.
1dY}\Sp Sci. 1996; 37: S183.
^S<Y>Nm] 8. Curbow B, Legro MW, Brenner MH. The influence of patientrelated
W.jGGt\<\ variables in the timing of cataract extraction. Am. J.
gk4;>} Ophthalmol. 1993; 115: 614–22.
/V8#[9K 9. Sletteberg OH, Høvding G, Bertelsen T. Do we operate too
"s-"<&>a( many cataracts? The referred cataract patients’ own appraisal
H H)!_(SA of their need for surgery. Acta Ophthalmol. Scand. 1995; 73:
=[ 46`-_ 77–80.
ZgJQ?S$D 10. Escarce JJ. Would eliminating differences in physician practice
*-WpZGh style reduce geographic variations in cataract surgery rates?
%QH$ipM Med. Care 1993; 31: 1106–18.
3Aip}<1 11. Livingston PM, Carson CA, Stanislavsky YL, Lee SE, Guest
;a!S!%.h CS, Taylor HR. Methods for a population-based study of eye
OKZV{Gja disease: the Melbourne Visual Impairment Project. Ophthalmic
LrfVh-}|:Y Epidemiol. 1994; 1: 139–48.
ldcqe$7, 12. Taylor HR, West SK. A simple system for the clinical grading
S\EyCi+ of lens opacities. Lens Res. 1988; 5: 175–81.
z
kP_6T09 82 McCarty et al.
"!P3R1;% 13. Cochran WG. Sampling Techniques. New York: John Wiley &
y1 DL,%j Sons, 1977; 249–73.
HWAdhDZ 14. Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical Methods in Cancer Research. Volume
M^Yh|%M II – the Design and Analysis of Cohort Studies. Lyon: International
,,.QfUj/& Agency for Research on Cancer; 1987; 52–61.
7"D",1h 15. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 1996 Census of Population and
+/7?HG
f Housing. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1997.
/62!cp/F/D 16. Livingston PM, Lee SE, McCarty CA, Taylor HR. A comparison
6wRd<]C of participants with non-participants in a populationbased
UgRiIQMq. epidemiologic study: the Melbourne Visual Impairment
k'Hs}z eNn Project. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 1997; 4: 73–82.
-IudgO] 17. Programme for the Prevention of Blindness. Global Initiative for the
h*a(_11 Elimination of Avoidable Blindness. Geneva: World Health
E~T-=ocKE Organization, 1997.
]cvwIc"> 18. Applegate WB, Miller ST, Elam JT, Freeman JM, Wood TO,
>uB?rGcM Gettlefinger TC. Impact of cataract surgery with lens implantation
uZYF(Yu on vision and physical function in elderly patients.
2.y-48Nz JAMA 1987; 257: 1064–6.
0> E r=,e 19. Steinberg EP, Tielsch JM, Schein OD et al. National Study of
c#]4awHU Cataract Surgery Outcomes. Variation in 4-month postoperative
T<>,lQs(a outcomes as reflected in multiple outcome measures.
RC"MdcD:]y Ophthalmology 1994; 101:1131–41.
V &T~zh1 20. Klein BEK, Klein R, Moss SE. Change in visual acuity associated
n&/
` with cataract surgery. The Beaver Dam Eye Study.
^
+\d
z Ophthalmology 1996; 103: 1727–31.
UDFDJ
m$ 21. McCarty CA, Keeffe JE, Taylor HR. The need for cataract
4"ZP 'I; surgery: projections based on lens opacity, visual acuity, and
G!##X: 6
' personal concern. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1999; 83: 62–5.
+=h:Vb8 22. Brenner MH, Curbow B, Javitt JC, Legro MW, Sommer A.
d1T!+I Vision change and quality of life in the elderly. Response to
MN>b7O \.? cataract surgery and treatment of other ocular conditions.
lVa%$F{Pq Arch. Ophthalmol. 1993; 111: 680–5.
{Xy5
pfW
Q 23. Schaumberg DA, Dana MR, Christen WG, Glynn RJ. A
1&OW4_ systematic overview of the incidence of posterior capsule
(WJRi:NP? opacification. Ophthalmology 1998; 105: 1213–21.
w2c?.x 24. Mordue A, Parkin DW, Baxter C, Fawcett G, Stewart M.
fO
rH$? Thresholds for treatment in cataract surgery. J. Public Health
9FR5Jw>t Med. 1994; 16: 393–8.
;(%QD
3 > 25. Norregaard JC, Bernth-Peterson P, Alonso J et al. Variations in
!<";cw(q indications for cataract surgery in the United States, Denmark,
C )
s5D Canada, and Spain: results from the International Cataract
j (d~aqW Surgery Outcomes Study. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1998; 82: 1107–11.