ABSTRACT
5?8jj Purpose: To quantify the prevalence of cataract, the outcomes
=*KY)X of cataract surgery and the factors related to
8j}o\!H unoperated cataract in Australia.
=L*-2cE6# Methods: Participants were recruited from the Visual
M
C%!>,tC Impairment Project: a cluster, stratified sample of more than
K?*p|&Fi?8 5000 Victorians aged 40 years and over. At examination
h=dFSK?*D sites interviews, clinical examinations and lens photography
8@7leAq! were performed. Cataract was defined in participants who
\Yr&vX/[p had: had previous cataract surgery, cortical cataract greater
ex8}./mjJ than 4/16, nuclear greater than Wilmer standard 2, or
S+GW}?! posterior subcapsular greater than 1 mm2.
lFa?l\jLXZ Results: The participant group comprised 3271 Melbourne
nf,Ez residents, 403 Melbourne nursing home residents and 1473
Ys8D|HIk rural residents.The weighted rate of any cataract in Victoria
G' mg-{ was 21.5%. The overall weighted rate of prior cataract
Fz2CXC surgery was 3.79%. Two hundred and forty-nine eyes had
ICzcV };$ had prior cataract surgery. Of these 249 procedures, 49
IgPU^?sp (20%) were aphakic, 6 (2.4%) had anterior chamber
7E;`1lh7 intraocular lenses and 194 (78%) had posterior chamber
Q; BD|95nl intraocular lenses.Two hundred and eleven of these operated
9b)'vr*Hy7 eyes (85%) had best-corrected visual acuity of 6/12 or
W$:D#;jz`h better, the legal requirement for a driver’s license.Twentyseven
UoHNKB73 (11%) had visual acuity of less than 6/18 (moderate
lKV7IoJ&; vision impairment). Complications of cataract surgery
'}E"Mdb caused reduced vision in four of the 27 eyes (15%), or 1.9%
`bW0Va
N of operated eyes. Three of these four eyes had undergone
BQ(sjJ$v6F intracapsular cataract extraction and the fourth eye had an
[#+klP$ opaque posterior capsule. No one had bilateral vision
+ {WZpP},v impairment as a result of cataract surgery. Surprisingly, no
:.SwO<j particular demographic factors (such as age, gender, rural
6NGQU%Hd residence, occupation, employment status, health insurance
1HUe8m[#3 status, ethnicity) were related to the presence of unoperated
L\\'n ) cataract.
CQ'4 ".7 Conclusions: Although the overall prevalence of cataract is
9eEA80i7
quite high, no particular subgroup is systematically underserviced
jV(b?r)eT{ in terms of cataract surgery. Overall, the results of
qm"AatA cataract surgery are very good, with the majority of eyes
M7//*Q'? achieving driving vision following cataract extraction.
j4$NQ]e^4 Key words: cataract extraction, health planning, health
7e6;
|? services accessibility, prevalence
0">9n9 INTRODUCTION
,{BF`5bn| Cataract is the leading cause of blindness worldwide and, in
As(6E}{S Australia, cataract extractions account for the majority of all
}a!c
ophthalmic procedures.1 Over the period 1985–94, the rate
{r:5\ of cataract surgery in Australia was twice as high as would be
O@-(fyG expected from the growth in the elderly population.1
oFp4*<\ Although there have been a number of studies reporting
~2O1$o u the prevalence of cataract in various populations,2–6 there is
'v%v*Ujf[ little information about determinants of cataract surgery in
<UbLds{+Uo the population. A previous survey of Australian ophthalmologists
-8z@FLUK- showed that patient concern and lifestyle, rather
\8/$ZEom than visual acuity itself, are the primary factors for referral
`$ZBIe/u for cataract surgery.7 This supports prior research which has
%h&F shown that visual acuity is not a strong predictor of need for
L^??*XEUJ cataract surgery.8,9 Elsewhere, socioeconomic status has
j9*5Kj been shown to be related to cataract surgery rates.10
y@Ak_]{b To appropriately plan health care services, information is
w %R=kY)o needed about the prevalence of age-related cataract in the
iV.j!H7o community as well as the factors associated with cataract
:F
pt>g surgery. The purpose of this study is to quantify the prevalence
+]0/:\(B of any cataract in Australia, to describe the factors
InB'Ag" related to unoperated cataract in the community and to
B=|m._OL]n describe the visual outcomes of cataract surgery.
=
o_zsDv METHODS
YkI_i( Study population
%B04|Q Details about the study methodology for the Visual
zj7?2 Impairment Project have been published previously.11
\
6 :7 Briefly, cluster sampling within three strata was employed to
G>S3? jGk recruit subjects aged 40 years and over to participate.
PbY=?>0 z Within the Melbourne Statistical Division, nine pairs of
1_5]3+r_U- census collector districts were randomly selected. Fourteen
Wrs6t nursing homes within a 5 km radius of these nine test sites
mZ#h p}\. were randomly chosen to recruit nursing home residents.
{hBnEj^@ Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology (2000) 28, 77–82
W|V
9:A Original Article
qw
}.
QwPT Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia
k;!}nQ& Catherine A McCarty PhD, MPH, Mukesh B Nanjan PhD, Hugh R Taylor MD
>JT^[i8[ Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
<Eh_ n Correspondence: Dr Cathy McCarty MPH, Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, 32 Gisborne Street, East Melbourne,
#oxP,LR Victoria 3002, Australia. Email:
cathy@cera.unimelb.edu.au `W'S'?$ 78 McCarty et al.
KfV&7yi Finally, four pairs of census collector districts in four rural
tJ Mm Victorian communities were randomly selected to recruit rural
-E-e! residents. A household census was conducted to identify
iKA qM{( eligible residents aged 40 years and over who had been a
PQ(/1v resident at that address for at least 6 months. At the time of
</23* n] the household census, basic information about age, sex,
~A,(D- country of birth, language spoken at home, education, use of
YAYwrKt corrective spectacles and use of eye care services was collected.
=$WDB=i Eligible residents were then invited to attend a local
* a@78&N examination site for a more detailed interview and examination.
& hv@ & The study protocol was approved by the Royal Victorian
BD&AtOj[, Eye and Ear Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee.
X{;5jnpG Assessment of cataract
/|,:'W%U A standardized ophthalmic examination was performed after
Jp +h''t pupil dilatation with one drop of 10% phenylephrine
# &Z1d(! hydrochloride. Lens opacities were graded clinically at the
%DuSco" time of the examination and subsequently from photos using
gutf[Ksu the Wilmer cataract photo-grading system.12 Cortical and
Wo<kKkx2 posterior subcapsular (PSC) opacities were assessed on
'2v$xOh!y retroillumination and measured as the proportion (in 1/16)
h#]LXs of pupil circumference occupied by opacity. For this analysis,
2>Sr04Pt cortical cataract was defined as 4/16 or greater opacity,
mZ4I}_\, PSC cataract was defined as opacity equal to or greater than
oL*ZfF3 1 mm2 and nuclear cataract was defined as opacity equal to
tz_WxOQ0 or greater than Wilmer standard 2,12 independent of visual
f^ 6da6Z acuity. Examples of the minimum opacities defined as cortical,
!l~3K(&4 nuclear and PSC cataract are presented in Figure 1.
bVYsPS Bilateral congenital cataracts or cataracts secondary to
bXK$H=S Bz intraocular inflammation or trauma were excluded from the
A&=`?4> analysis. Two cases of bilateral secondary cataract and eight
w"A%@<V3Ec cases of bilateral congenital cataract were excluded from the
H?)?(t7@ analyses.
o]m56 A Topcon® SL5 photo slit-lamp (Topcon America Corp.,
mY/x|)MmM Paramus, NJ, USA) with a 0.1 mm slit beam of 9.0 mm in
FHbw& height set to an incident angle of 30° was used for examinations.
mKhlYVn Ektachrome® 200 ASA colour slide film (Eastman
P>;u S Kodak Company, Rochester, NY, USA) was used to photograph
Xsv^GmP+ the nuclear opacities. The cortical opacities were
c`4
i#R photographed with an Oxford® retroillumination camera
R#33ACCX (Marcher Enterprises Ltd, Hereford, UK) and T-MAX® 400
s+E-M=d0e film (Eastman Kodak). Photographs were graded separately
\_PD@A9 by two research assistants and discrepancies were adjudicated
i
V8O<en&i by an independent reviewer. Any discrepancies
pPtw(5bH between the clinical grades and the photograph grades were
J-+p]xG resolved. Except in cases where photographs were missing,
p/.[cH the photograph grades were used in the analyses. Photograph
ro*$OLc/ grades were available for 4301 (84%) for cortical
5sK1rDN cataract, 4147 (81%) for nuclear cataract and 4303 (84%)
(S#nA:E for PSC cataract. Cataract status was classified according to
</7_T<He. the severity of the opacity in the worse eye.
?&GV~DYxA Assessment of risk factors
T^n0 =| A standardized questionnaire was used to obtain information
;c~%:| about education, employment and ethnic background.11
GJIM^ Specific information was elicited on the occurrence, duration
jbK<"T5 and treatment of a number of medical conditions,
e x`mu E including ocular trauma, arthritis, diabetes, gout, hypertension
>;zQ.2* and mental illness. Information about the use, dose and
~q05xy8 duration of tobacco, alcohol, analgesics and steriods were
mYiIwm1cb( collected, and a food frequency questionnaire was used to
,zU7U L^I determine current consumption of dietary sources of antioxidants
!$|
h[ct and use of vitamin supplements.
b^I(>l- Data management and statistical analysis
dqo&3^px Data were collected either by direct computer entry with a
Th[Gu8b3 questionnaire programmed in Paradox© (Carel Corporation,
Ci?A4q$. Ottawa, Canada) with internal consistency checks, or
zM*PN|/%sH on self-coding forms. Open-ended responses were coded at
[_SV$Jz a later time. Data that were entered on the self-coded forms
ww(. were entered into a computer with double data entry and
L:3 reconciliation of any inconsistencies. Data range and consistency
a}#Jcy!e checks were performed on the entire data set.
KOM]7%ys1H SAS© version 6.1 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina) was
js<}>wD7< employed for statistical analyses.
%~A$cc Ninety-five per cent confidence limits around the agespecific
<.qhW^>X
rates were calculated according to Cochran13 to
Gv uX"J account for the effect of the cluster sampling. Ninety-five
z3X:.% per cent confidence limits around age-standardized rates
~\~K,v were calculated according to Breslow and Day.14 The strataspecific
x%\m/_5w% data were weighted according to the 1996
:VEy\ R>W Australian Bureau of Statistics census data15 to reflect the
`zZGL&9m` cataract prevalence in the entire Victorian population.
ELWm>'Q#9 Univariate analyses with Student’s t-tests and chi-squared
^w*$qz
ESy tests were first employed to evaluate risk factors for unoperated
uk)6% cataract. Any factors with P < 0.10 were then fitted
|N/Wu9w$ into a backwards stepwise logistic regression model. For the
e}Xmb$ Figure 1. Minimum levels of cortical (a), nuclear (b), and posterior subcapsular (c) cataract.
f/Q7WXl0
final multivariate models, P < 0.05 was considered statistically
3S_H hvB significant. Design effect was assessed through the use
OY>0qj of cluster-specific models and multivariate models. The
UPI'O % design effect was assumed to be additive and an adjustment
}*ZOD1j made in the variance by adding the variance associated with
y$n`+%_ the design effect prior to constructing the 95% confidence
W7ffdODb limits.
}1
/`<m RESULTS
~
[4oA$[a| Study population
"uthFE A total of 3271 (83%) of the Melbourne residents, 403
#g6*s+Gm (90%) Melbourne nursing home residents, and 1473 (92%)
~dO&e=6Hk rural residents participated. In general, non-participants did
u3>Dvl@ not differ from participants.16 The study population was
a#qC.,$A representative of the Victorian population and Australia as
DE^ @b+6 a whole.
&xGcxFd The Melbourne residents ranged in age from 40 to
D`G ;kp 98 years (mean = 59) and 1511 (46%) were male. The
uWSfr(loX Melbourne nursing home residents ranged in age from 46 to
WF.y"{6> 101 years (mean = 82) and 85 (21%) were men. The rural
=h{jF7 residents ranged in age from 40 to 103 years (mean = 60)
@4Ox$M and 701 (47.5%) were men.
l]GUQcN= Prevalence of cataract and prior cataract surgery
Rf~? u)h1 As would be expected, the rate of any cataract increases
<CJ`A5N dramatically with age (Table 1). The weighted rate of any
?_+h+{/@B cataract in Victoria was 21.5% (95% CL 18.1, 24.9).
aNW!Y':*
Although the rates varied somewhat between the three
MJ)aY2 strata, they were not significantly different as the 95% confidence
jnl3P[uQ limits overlapped. The per cent of cataractous eyes
|Ir&C[QS{y with best-corrected visual acuity of less than 6/12 was 12.5%
kdX]Afyj (65/520) for cortical cataract, 18% for nuclear cataract
*k]izWsV* (97/534) and 14.4% (27/187) for PSC cataract. Cataract
V_SZp8 surgery also rose dramatically with age. The overall
v$H]=y weighted rate of prior cataract surgery in Victoria was
X R =^zp? 3.79% (95% CL 2.97, 4.60) (Table 2).
tw`{\kWG Risk factors for unoperated cataract
B tZycI Cases of cataract that had not been removed were classified
+])St3h as unoperated cataract. Risk factor analyses for unoperated
$
+` cataract were not performed with the nursing home residents
)i;o\UU as information about risk factor exposure was not
`qjiC>9 available for this cohort. The following factors were assessed
FE`:1 in relation to unoperated cataract: age, sex, residence
<]u~;e57 (urban/rural), language spoken at home (a measure of ethnic
5jpb`Axj# integration), country of birth, parents’ country of birth (a
(mOUbO8 measure of ethnicity), years since migration, education, use
qx1}e of ophthalmic services, use of optometric services, private
aK%i=6j! health insurance status, duration of distance glasses use,
p.gaw16}> glaucoma, age-related maculopathy and employment status.
483BrFV In this cross sectional study it was not possible to assess the
em87`Hj^lo level of visual acuity that would predict a patient’s having
oM=Ltxv} cataract surgery, as visual acuity data prior to cataract
k0=$mmmPY surgery were not available.
)1>fQ9 The significant risk factors for unoperated cataract in univariate
S}=euY'i analyses were related to: whether a participant had
BCE}Er& ever seen an optometrist, seen an ophthalmologist or been
PF,|Wzx diagnosed with glaucoma; and participants’ employment
.}}w@NO status (currently employed) and age. These significant
o*OaYF'8 factors were placed in a backwards stepwise logistic regression
l3sL!D1u model. The factors that remained significantly related
$)5F3a| to unoperated cataract were whether participants had ever
z;dD
}Fo seen an ophthalmologist, seen an optometrist and been
g,5r)FU` diagnosed with glaucoma. None of the demographic factors
u0;FQr2 were associated with unoperated cataract in the multivariate
k+au42:r model.
A~CQ@ The per cent of participants with unoperated cataract
!+?,y/*5( who said that they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with
,&II4;F Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia 79
+gG6(7&+= Table 1. Prevalence of any cataracta (excluding previous cataract surgery) by age, gender and cohort
K<HF!YU#I2 Age group Sex Urban Rural Nursing home Weighted total
Nw`}iR0i (years) (%) (%) (%)
N 798(" 40–49 Male 2.56 4.04 0.00 3.00 (1.91, 4.08)
SBBDlr^P Female 2.61 1.70 0.00 2.36 (1.61, 3.10)
{iG
k~qN 50–59 Male 7.69 6.94 0.00 7.47 (5.80, 9.15)
F d:A^] Female 6.67 7.56 0.00 6.92 (5.60, 8.24)
O.n pi: a 60–69 Male 20.7 25.0 10.0 22.0 (18.1, 26.0)
Rc2| o.'y Female 27.9 35.7 37.5 30.3 (26.0, 34.7)
DwXzmp[qWH 70–79 Male 43.1 58.7 39.1 48.1 (41.2, 55.1)
@za X\ Female 58.6 66.2 55.6 61.0 (56.0, 65.9)
r Bv 80–89 Male 74.0 89.3 92.0 79.3 (72.3, 86.3)
5*=a*nD11 Female 91.9 97.0 80.2 92.6 (86.4, 98.8)
K)|#FRPM u 90 + Male 100.0 100.0 75.0 98.8 (96.2, 100.0)
nRpZ;X)'. Female 100.0 100.0 93.8 98.6 (97.0, 100.0)
LQ5 W
S Age-standardized
hjB G`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)
;dt&*]wA aCortical > 4/16, nuclear > standard 2, posterior subcapsular > 1 mm2
l4oI5)w their current vision was 30% (290/683), compared with 27%
s2t'jIB (26/95) of participants with prior cataract surgery (chisquared,
P
0xInW F 1 d.f. = 0.25, P = 0.62).
4qtjP8Zv[ Outcomes of cataract surgery
&j}\ZD Two hundred and forty-nine eyes had undergone prior
w
(kN0HD cataract surgery. Of these 249 operated eyes, 49 (20%) were
yM%,*VZ left aphakic, 6 (2.4%) had anterior chamber intraocular
38IVSK_
lenses and 194 (78%) had posterior chamber intraocular
[gZd$9a
lenses. The rate of capsulotomy in the eyes with intact
-(FVTWi0 posterior capsules was 36% (73/202). Fifteen per cent of
=/@c9QaVB eyes (17/114) with a clear posterior capsule had bestcorrected
,bRvj8"M visual acuity of less than 6/12 compared with 43%
k;v23 of eyes (6/14) with opaque capsules, and 15% of eyes
FHVZ/ e (11/73) with prior capsulotomies (chi-squared, 2 d.f. = 7.21,
o/EA%q1 P = 0.027).
Yr@)W~ The percentage of eyes with best-corrected visual acuity
7bioLE of 6/12 or better was 96% (302/314) for eyes without
%\?2W8Qv_J cataract, 88% (1417/1609) for eyes with prevalent cataract
[xT2c.2__J and 85% (211/249) for eyes with operated cataract (chisquared,
mjbr}9 2 d.f. = 22.3), P < 0.001). Twenty-seven of the
V.PbAN operated eyes (11%) had visual acuities of less than 6/18
$a(EF
6 (moderate vision impairment) (Fig. 2). A cause of this
'`^<*;w moderate visual impairment (but not the only cause) in four
YC\~P
VG (15%) eyes was secondary to cataract surgery. Three of these
-:(,<Jt< four eyes had undergone intracapsular cataract extraction
x0wy3+GZc and the fourth eye had an opaque posterior capsule. No one
gCAWRNp had bilateral vision impairment as a result of their cataract
o
>bf7+D surgery.
}?xu/C DISCUSSION
6P;JF%{J To our knowledge, this is the first paper to systematically
H aI assess the prevalence of current cataract, previous cataract
&Mbpv)V8 surgery, predictors of unoperated cataract and the outcomes
ETe,RY of cataract surgery in a population-based sample. The Visual
QSf{V(fs Impairment Project is unique in that the sampling frame and
/)?]vKMiI high response rate have ensured that the study population is
O G#By6O representative of Australians aged 40 years and over. Therefore,
zRsG
$)B these data can be used to plan age-related cataract
?g2Wu0< services throughout Australia.
FCU~*c8Cs We found the rate of any cataract in those over the age
}./__gJ of 40 years to be 22%. Although relatively high, this rate is
S!o!NSn@1 significantly less than was reported in a number of previous
;cIs$ studies,2,4,6 with the exception of the Casteldaccia Eye
bJ~]nj 3 Study.5 However, it is difficult to compare rates of cataract
-%"Kxe between studies because of different methodologies and
gTZ1LJ cataract definitions employed in the various studies, as well
U}(*}Ut as the different age structures of the study populations.
1Iu^+ Other studies have used less conservative definitions of
?cf9q@eAH cataract, thus leading to higher rates of cataract as defined.
<e|I?zI9- In most large epidemiologic studies of cataract, visual acuity
O#fGHI<43[ has not been included in the definition of cataract.
=xFw4D9 Therefore, the prevalence of cataract may not reflect the
`yJpDGh actual need for cataract surgery in the community.
<m"Zk k 80 McCarty et al.
"<x%kD Table 2. Prevalence of previous cataract by age, gender and cohort
I:[^><?E Age group Gender Urban Rural Nursing home Weighted total
HkFoyy (years) (%) (%) (%)
DQY*0\ 40–49 Male 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.80 (0.00, 1.81)
Jw?J(ig^ Female 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (
%JmSCjt`G 50–59 Male 0.68 0.58 0.00 0.65 (0.13, 1.17)
%{g<{\@4(; Female 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.41 (0.00, 1.00)
77"'? 60–69 Male 2.12 7.59 0.00 3.80 (1.41, 6.19)
{j.5!Nj]B Female 2.11 3.51 0.00 2.54 (1.81, 3.26)
LC)
-aw>- 70–79 Male 8.22 9.85 8.70 8.75 (6.38, 11.1)
_v:t$k#sN Female 7.21 7.86 7.02 7.41 (5.36, 9.46)
\&|)?'8rS 80–89 Male 25.0 30.0 14.3 26.2 (17.0, 35.4)
DYkNP:+ Female 27.9 25.6 18.3 26.7 (20.2, 33.3)
0q(}n v 90 + Male 0.00 16.7 66.7 9.19 (0.00, 21.5)
XqMJe'%r Female 58.3 100.0 26.9 63.1 (44.4, 81.8)
sA=WU(4^ Age-standardized
#Q}`kFB` (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)
.^0@^%Wi Figure 2. Visual acuity in eyes that had undergone cataract
{[QCuR surgery, n = 249. h, Presenting; j, best-corrected.
&u0JzK Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia 81
Z}6
The weighted prevalence of prior cataract surgery in the
:4|ubu Visual Impairment Project (3.6%) was similar to the crude
S,,,D+4 rate in the Beaver Dam Eye Study4 (3.1%), but less than the
xG i,\K\: crude rate in the Blue Mountains Eye Study6 (6.0%).
+x$GwX However, the age-standardized rate in the Blue Mountains
"HSAwe`5jU Eye Study (standardized to the age distribution of the urban
eSNi6RvE Visual Impairment Project cohort) was found to be less than
zX{K\yp the Visual Impairment Project (standardized rate = 1.36%,
9BgR@b 95% CL 1.25, 1.47). The incidence of cataract surgery in
~Qjf-| Australia has exceeded population growth.1 This is due,
$6Z@0H@X perhaps, to advances in surgical techniques and lens
S?n, O+q implants that have changed the risk–benefit ratio.
rkOLTi[$ The Global Initiative for the Elimination of Avoidable
g9~>m JR Blindness, sponsored by the World Health Organization,
V*HkFT states that cataract surgical services should be provided that
KLi&TmIB ‘have a high success rate in terms of visual outcome and
#)hc^gIO&< improved quality of life’,17 although the ‘high success rate’ is
jt9fcw not defined. Population- and clinic-based studies conducted
*0M[lR0t in the United States have demonstrated marked improvement
;s
m )f in visual acuity following cataract surgery.18–20 We
,
kiyxh^ found that 85% of eyes that had undergone cataract extraction
_)A
X/%^% had visual acuity of 6/12 or better. Previously, we have
;#a^M*e shown that participants with prevalent cataract in this
[k qx%4q) cohort are more likely to express dissatisfaction with their
_?Q0yVH;, current vision than participants without cataract or participants
I29aja with prior cataract surgery.21 In a national study in the
l!z)gto United States, researchers found that the change in patients’
ft$@':F ratings of their vision difficulties and satisfaction with their
oNW5/W2e; vision after cataract surgery were more highly related to
#w_cos[I their change in visual functioning score than to their change
36ygI0V_ in visual acuity.19 Furthermore, improvement in visual function
oT9
dMhx8 has been shown to be associated with improvement in
aPD4S&"Q overall quality of life.22
OEMYS I% A recent review found that the incidence of visually
wB%:RI, significant posterior capsule opacification following
PtP{_9%Dz cataract surgery to be greater than 25%.23 We found 36%
NF9fPAF%; capsulotomy in our population and that this was associated
/Z':wu\ with visual acuity similar to that of eyes with a clear
`xb\) capsule, but significantly better than that of eyes with an
fGK=lT$ opaque capsule.
T["(wPrt A number of studies have shown that the demand and
}.+{M.[} timing of cataract surgery vary according to visual acuity,
fjD/<`}v degree of handicap and socioeconomic factors.8–10,24,25 We
Ph{7S43 have also shown previously that ophthalmologists are more
."HDUo2D7 likely to refer a patient for cataract surgery if the patient is
*2nQZ^c. employed and less likely to refer a nursing home resident.7
.K
I6<k/ In the Visual Impairment Project, we did not find that any
~8fy
qE$ particular subgroup of the population was at greater risk of
e+'PRVc having unoperated cataract. Universal access to health care
d2cslDd in Australia may explain the fact that people without
F@4TD]E0^ Medicare are more likely to delay cataract operations in the
(T&rvE USA,8 but not having private health insurance is not associated
R;XG2 with unoperated cataract in Australia.
~f:y^`+Q[ In summary, cataract is a significant public health problem
i-kj6N5 in that one in four people in their 80s will have had cataract
NOzAk%s3I surgery. The importance of age-related cataract surgery will
hmijp1u increase further with the ageing of the population: the
hU:
9zLe number of people over age 60 years is expected to double in
{DP%=4 the next 20 years. Cataract surgery services are well
397IbZ\ accessed by the Victorian population and the visual outcomes
6R`q{}. of cataract surgery have been shown to be very good.
S9cAw5E(yN These data can be used to plan for age-related cataract
bQTkW<7gh surgical services in Australia in the future as the need for
Vn7FbaO^ cataract extractions increases.
Y.7iKMp( ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
sN"JVJXi The Visual Impairment Project was funded in part by grants
9i^dQV.U= from the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, the
B
z7rf^H`Z National Health and Medical Research Council, the Ansell
zYCS K~-GW Ophthalmology Foundation, the Dorothy Edols Estate and
!@.9>"FU the Jack Brockhoff Foundation. Dr McCarty is the recipient
U3oMY{{EJ of a Wagstaff Fellowship in Ophthalmology from the Royal
By&ibN), Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital.
c3L)!]kB REFERENCES
-g5o+RT@ 1. Keeffe JE, Taylor HR. Cataract surgery in Australia 1985–94.
jPDk~| Aust. N.Z. J. Ophthalmol. 1996; 24: 313–17.
Z?@oe-mz 2. Sperduto RD, Hiller R. The prevalence of nuclear, cortical,
ktEdbALK and posterior subcapsular lens opacities in a general population
[?Q
U'[ sample. Ophthalmology 1984; 91: 815–18.
NKy Ksu
3. Maraini G, Pasquini P, Sperduto RD et al. Distribution of lens
l-mt{2 opacities in the Italian-American case–control study of agerelated
,NA _pvH) cataract. Ophthalmology 1990; 97: 752–6.
~uUN\qx52 4. Klein BEK, Klein R, Linton KLP. Prevalence of age-related
XCP/e p lens opacities in a population. The Beaver Dam Eye Study.
^!F
Li7X Ophthalmology 1992; 99: 546–52.
$sfDtnRy 5. Guiffrè G, Giammanco R, Di Pace F, Ponte F. Casteldaccia eye
'0jjoZ: study: prevalence of cataract in the adult and elderly population
u]<_6;_ of a Mediterranean town. Int. Ophthalmol. 1995; 18:
?as1^~ 363–71.
z P`&X:8 6. Mitchell P, Cumming RG, Attebo K, Panchapakesan J.
flXDGoW Prevalence of cataract in Australia. The Blue Mountains Eye
l5/!0]/ Study. Ophthalmology 1997; 104: 581–8.
5ltrr(MeD 7. Keeffe JE, McCarty CA, Chang WP, Steinberg EP, Taylor HR.
^+MG"|)u~ Relative importance of VA, patient concern and patient
S=^kR [O" lifestyle on referral for cataract surgery. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis.
"<=HmE-; Sci. 1996; 37: S183.
l|Y?]LNr 8. Curbow B, Legro MW, Brenner MH. The influence of patientrelated
!5VT[w
1 variables in the timing of cataract extraction. Am. J.
u$MXO].Q Ophthalmol. 1993; 115: 614–22.
`^G?+p2E 9. Sletteberg OH, Høvding G, Bertelsen T. Do we operate too
NGs@z^&V many cataracts? The referred cataract patients’ own appraisal
p_:bt7
B of their need for surgery. Acta Ophthalmol. Scand. 1995; 73:
;) (F4 77–80.
1${rQ9FIF 10. Escarce JJ. Would eliminating differences in physician practice
=;z42oS style reduce geographic variations in cataract surgery rates?
Pe`eF(J Med. Care 1993; 31: 1106–18.
Xf/qUao 11. Livingston PM, Carson CA, Stanislavsky YL, Lee SE, Guest
tXg>R _\C CS, Taylor HR. Methods for a population-based study of eye
y7@q]~% disease: the Melbourne Visual Impairment Project. Ophthalmic
lWRRB&8 Epidemiol. 1994; 1: 139–48.
NN"!kuM 12. Taylor HR, West SK. A simple system for the clinical grading
g?1! /+ of lens opacities. Lens Res. 1988; 5: 175–81.
?rSm6V 82 McCarty et al.
D6NgdE7b 13. Cochran WG. Sampling Techniques. New York: John Wiley &
hTS?+l Sons, 1977; 249–73.
.% {4B,d$ 14. Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical Methods in Cancer Research. Volume
Og E<bw II – the Design and Analysis of Cohort Studies. Lyon: International
YCI-p p Agency for Research on Cancer; 1987; 52–61.
`F,*NESv 15. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 1996 Census of Population and
+)U>mm, Housing. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1997.
'^ob3N/Y [ 16. Livingston PM, Lee SE, McCarty CA, Taylor HR. A comparison
rzO5 3\ of participants with non-participants in a populationbased
W*jwf@
0 epidemiologic study: the Melbourne Visual Impairment
2)^gd Project. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 1997; 4: 73–82.
]`H8r y2 17. Programme for the Prevention of Blindness. Global Initiative for the
cwC-)#R'] Elimination of Avoidable Blindness. Geneva: World Health
WgayH Organization, 1997.
Nt/#Qu2#br 18. Applegate WB, Miller ST, Elam JT, Freeman JM, Wood TO,
>og-
jz Gettlefinger TC. Impact of cataract surgery with lens implantation
0sGAC on vision and physical function in elderly patients.
["
}Yp JAMA 1987; 257: 1064–6.
k
r{eC/Q" 19. Steinberg EP, Tielsch JM, Schein OD et al. National Study of
m)oGeD( ! Cataract Surgery Outcomes. Variation in 4-month postoperative
p)y'a+|7 outcomes as reflected in multiple outcome measures.
%D
$+Z( Ophthalmology 1994; 101:1131–41.
m|%ly 20. Klein BEK, Klein R, Moss SE. Change in visual acuity associated
ZMn~QU_5 with cataract surgery. The Beaver Dam Eye Study.
1_V',0|`> Ophthalmology 1996; 103: 1727–31.
QsC6\Gt# 21. McCarty CA, Keeffe JE, Taylor HR. The need for cataract
Y2 QX9RN surgery: projections based on lens opacity, visual acuity, and
5FQtlB9F personal concern. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1999; 83: 62–5.
vd ]75 22. Brenner MH, Curbow B, Javitt JC, Legro MW, Sommer A.
BELxaV, Vision change and quality of life in the elderly. Response to
~uRL+<.c cataract surgery and treatment of other ocular conditions.
S3F8Chk5 Arch. Ophthalmol. 1993; 111: 680–5.
lq*{2M{[ 23. Schaumberg DA, Dana MR, Christen WG, Glynn RJ. A
CF0i72ul5 systematic overview of the incidence of posterior capsule
*@SZ0 opacification. Ophthalmology 1998; 105: 1213–21.
V+- ]txu| 24. Mordue A, Parkin DW, Baxter C, Fawcett G, Stewart M.
*Iir/6myM Thresholds for treatment in cataract surgery. J. Public Health
dSq3V#Q Med. 1994; 16: 393–8.
8sz|
9~ 25. Norregaard JC, Bernth-Peterson P, Alonso J et al. Variations in
f zsD
indications for cataract surgery in the United States, Denmark,
%FSY}65 Canada, and Spain: results from the International Cataract
2uy<wJE> Surgery Outcomes Study. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1998; 82: 1107–11.