ABSTRACT
?;q Purpose: To quantify the prevalence of cataract, the outcomes
&efwfnG< of cataract surgery and the factors related to
iC$mb~G unoperated cataract in Australia.
Pc{0Js5VzE Methods: Participants were recruited from the Visual
[~%\:of70n Impairment Project: a cluster, stratified sample of more than
o<pb!]1 5000 Victorians aged 40 years and over. At examination
$L@os2 sites interviews, clinical examinations and lens photography
kS\A_"bc were performed. Cataract was defined in participants who
Os9;;^k had: had previous cataract surgery, cortical cataract greater
6wmMg i_m than 4/16, nuclear greater than Wilmer standard 2, or
t%B ,ATW posterior subcapsular greater than 1 mm2.
%wc=Mf Results: The participant group comprised 3271 Melbourne
f{[ ]m(X; residents, 403 Melbourne nursing home residents and 1473
uyp|
Xh, rural residents.The weighted rate of any cataract in Victoria
?6m6 4{M was 21.5%. The overall weighted rate of prior cataract
b }^ylm surgery was 3.79%. Two hundred and forty-nine eyes had
CP%?,\ had prior cataract surgery. Of these 249 procedures, 49
jRhOo%p (20%) were aphakic, 6 (2.4%) had anterior chamber
2$Fy?08q intraocular lenses and 194 (78%) had posterior chamber
L{2KK]IF intraocular lenses.Two hundred and eleven of these operated
&4m\``//9 eyes (85%) had best-corrected visual acuity of 6/12 or
9"#,X36 better, the legal requirement for a driver’s license.Twentyseven
Kt 0
3F$ (11%) had visual acuity of less than 6/18 (moderate
`<3/k vision impairment). Complications of cataract surgery
1Re5)Y:i caused reduced vision in four of the 27 eyes (15%), or 1.9%
5y1:oiE/ of operated eyes. Three of these four eyes had undergone
A<+veqb4 intracapsular cataract extraction and the fourth eye had an
\?|FB~.Ry opaque posterior capsule. No one had bilateral vision
>7fNxQ impairment as a result of cataract surgery. Surprisingly, no
v&8%t 7| particular demographic factors (such as age, gender, rural
LzS)WjEN residence, occupation, employment status, health insurance
@u.%z# h"1 status, ethnicity) were related to the presence of unoperated
$4&%<'l3I cataract.
y|e@z
f Conclusions: Although the overall prevalence of cataract is
]{/1F:bcQ quite high, no particular subgroup is systematically underserviced
:B(vk3;U! in terms of cataract surgery. Overall, the results of
Ha}
TdQ% cataract surgery are very good, with the majority of eyes
&rj)Oh2 achieving driving vision following cataract extraction.
lV*dQwa?i Key words: cataract extraction, health planning, health
&
t1Uk[ services accessibility, prevalence
5g-AB`6T INTRODUCTION
wS)2ymRg Cataract is the leading cause of blindness worldwide and, in
3T|xUY)G4 Australia, cataract extractions account for the majority of all
T08SG
B] ophthalmic procedures.1 Over the period 1985–94, the rate
TrEo5
H ; of cataract surgery in Australia was twice as high as would be
t@Bl3Nt{ expected from the growth in the elderly population.1
a9"1a' Although there have been a number of studies reporting
k|SywATr the prevalence of cataract in various populations,2–6 there is
8vK$]e36 little information about determinants of cataract surgery in
C
=sEgtEI the population. A previous survey of Australian ophthalmologists
aYBc
)LCd showed that patient concern and lifestyle, rather
[ 1$p}x than visual acuity itself, are the primary factors for referral
u@{z
xYn for cataract surgery.7 This supports prior research which has
]8c%)%Vi shown that visual acuity is not a strong predictor of need for
hbOyrjanx cataract surgery.8,9 Elsewhere, socioeconomic status has
,?k~>,{3 been shown to be related to cataract surgery rates.10
wt(Hk6/B To appropriately plan health care services, information is
#AN]mH needed about the prevalence of age-related cataract in the
v"K # community as well as the factors associated with cataract
^Fe%1Lnt surgery. The purpose of this study is to quantify the prevalence
V(^aG=TaW: of any cataract in Australia, to describe the factors
}5??n~:*5 related to unoperated cataract in the community and to
tS@J)p+_( describe the visual outcomes of cataract surgery.
z
K +C&X METHODS
_^(}6o Study population
w9W0j Details about the study methodology for the Visual
\H-,^[G3 Impairment Project have been published previously.11
6bacU#0o Briefly, cluster sampling within three strata was employed to
))<1"7D^^ recruit subjects aged 40 years and over to participate.
ET
1>&l:. Within the Melbourne Statistical Division, nine pairs of
VGPBD-6) census collector districts were randomly selected. Fourteen
9wB}EDZ nursing homes within a 5 km radius of these nine test sites
WbP
wO were randomly chosen to recruit nursing home residents.
(0cL!
N;; Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology (2000) 28, 77–82
=/6rX"\P Original Article
)dMXn2O Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia
rF*L@HI Catherine A McCarty PhD, MPH, Mukesh B Nanjan PhD, Hugh R Taylor MD
DsI{*# Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
&AS<2hB n Correspondence: Dr Cathy McCarty MPH, Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, 32 Gisborne Street, East Melbourne,
F-g7* Victoria 3002, Australia. Email:
cathy@cera.unimelb.edu.au U&\2\z3{ 78 McCarty et al.
u]Eyb),Gy Finally, four pairs of census collector districts in four rural
yE80*C~d Victorian communities were randomly selected to recruit rural
|fd}B5!c residents. A household census was conducted to identify
Z
^w5x : eligible residents aged 40 years and over who had been a
+=qazE<:0 resident at that address for at least 6 months. At the time of
<"8<< the household census, basic information about age, sex,
uINm>$G,5 country of birth, language spoken at home, education, use of
bktw?{h corrective spectacles and use of eye care services was collected.
DKzP)!B " Eligible residents were then invited to attend a local
Du*O| examination site for a more detailed interview and examination.
pH'1be{K The study protocol was approved by the Royal Victorian
2S{IZ] Eye and Ear Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee.
@NY$.K#] Assessment of cataract
Ijs"KAW
? A standardized ophthalmic examination was performed after
^&|$&7
pupil dilatation with one drop of 10% phenylephrine
.).*6{_ hydrochloride. Lens opacities were graded clinically at the
~5f|L(ODX time of the examination and subsequently from photos using
7fB:wPlG; the Wilmer cataract photo-grading system.12 Cortical and
0aF&5Lk`y posterior subcapsular (PSC) opacities were assessed on
luEP5l2& retroillumination and measured as the proportion (in 1/16)
0tzMu# of pupil circumference occupied by opacity. For this analysis,
@$ea-fK?? cortical cataract was defined as 4/16 or greater opacity,
Hsoe?kUHF PSC cataract was defined as opacity equal to or greater than
6}vPwI 1 mm2 and nuclear cataract was defined as opacity equal to
@+S5"W or greater than Wilmer standard 2,12 independent of visual
KLc<c1BZ acuity. Examples of the minimum opacities defined as cortical,
bN#)F
nuclear and PSC cataract are presented in Figure 1.
r}gp{Pf7e Bilateral congenital cataracts or cataracts secondary to
~IB~>5U! intraocular inflammation or trauma were excluded from the
$g|/.XH% analysis. Two cases of bilateral secondary cataract and eight
qX(sx2TK cases of bilateral congenital cataract were excluded from the
ye9-%~sjX analyses.
z]NN ^pIa A Topcon® SL5 photo slit-lamp (Topcon America Corp.,
TV>UD
q Paramus, NJ, USA) with a 0.1 mm slit beam of 9.0 mm in
?1I0VA'] height set to an incident angle of 30° was used for examinations.
%rz.>4i)( Ektachrome® 200 ASA colour slide film (Eastman
wHQyMq^ Kodak Company, Rochester, NY, USA) was used to photograph
l6X\.oI the nuclear opacities. The cortical opacities were
C?Sy
90f photographed with an Oxford® retroillumination camera
XK)qDg (Marcher Enterprises Ltd, Hereford, UK) and T-MAX® 400
hr8v O"tZN film (Eastman Kodak). Photographs were graded separately
&}1PH%6 by two research assistants and discrepancies were adjudicated
\pzqUTk
by an independent reviewer. Any discrepancies
W@^O'&3d between the clinical grades and the photograph grades were
aF:_ 1.LC resolved. Except in cases where photographs were missing,
-P09u82 the photograph grades were used in the analyses. Photograph
0ih=<@1 K grades were available for 4301 (84%) for cortical
dpO ZqhRs. cataract, 4147 (81%) for nuclear cataract and 4303 (84%)
-vXX u;frt for PSC cataract. Cataract status was classified according to
#:v e3gWl the severity of the opacity in the worse eye.
m~fA=#l
l Assessment of risk factors
K h}Oiw A standardized questionnaire was used to obtain information
F z_SID about education, employment and ethnic background.11
"lo:"y(u Specific information was elicited on the occurrence, duration
{XMF26C# and treatment of a number of medical conditions,
r* K[, including ocular trauma, arthritis, diabetes, gout, hypertension
;zD1#dD and mental illness. Information about the use, dose and
\:
H&.VQ" duration of tobacco, alcohol, analgesics and steriods were
ic:_v?k collected, and a food frequency questionnaire was used to
.17WF\1HC. determine current consumption of dietary sources of antioxidants
5-Vdq and use of vitamin supplements.
_2V L% Data management and statistical analysis
vMsb@@O\ \ Data were collected either by direct computer entry with a
(
w(GJ/g questionnaire programmed in Paradox© (Carel Corporation,
c|[:vin Ottawa, Canada) with internal consistency checks, or
RLN>*X on self-coding forms. Open-ended responses were coded at
}vkrWy^ a later time. Data that were entered on the self-coded forms
Lrgv:n were entered into a computer with double data entry and
>&mlwxqv reconciliation of any inconsistencies. Data range and consistency
Kd8V,teH checks were performed on the entire data set.
P SDzs\
s SAS© version 6.1 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina) was
|:SBkM, employed for statistical analyses.
SF2A?L?}+ Ninety-five per cent confidence limits around the agespecific
.%7#o rates were calculated according to Cochran13 to
UH1AT#?!W account for the effect of the cluster sampling. Ninety-five
9"g=it2Rh6 per cent confidence limits around age-standardized rates
a;J{'PHu were calculated according to Breslow and Day.14 The strataspecific
[#>ji+%= data were weighted according to the 1996
& IVwm" Australian Bureau of Statistics census data15 to reflect the
7u]0dHj cataract prevalence in the entire Victorian population.
{x e$ Univariate analyses with Student’s t-tests and chi-squared
0S <;T+WA tests were first employed to evaluate risk factors for unoperated
"Zd4e2>{M\ cataract. Any factors with P < 0.10 were then fitted
Tx%6whd/' into a backwards stepwise logistic regression model. For the
8Czy<}S<G Figure 1. Minimum levels of cortical (a), nuclear (b), and posterior subcapsular (c) cataract.
#/zPAcV: final multivariate models, P < 0.05 was considered statistically
euO!+9p significant. Design effect was assessed through the use
YHN@?}T() of cluster-specific models and multivariate models. The
|[n-
H;0 design effect was assumed to be additive and an adjustment
n<6p 0w made in the variance by adding the variance associated with
fyIL/7hzf4 the design effect prior to constructing the 95% confidence
3+_? /}< limits.
_sIhQ8$: RESULTS
8`Fo
^c=j Study population
BX&bhWYGFX A total of 3271 (83%) of the Melbourne residents, 403
dxbP'2~ (90%) Melbourne nursing home residents, and 1473 (92%)
_7>$'V{ rural residents participated. In general, non-participants did
}Z*@EWc> not differ from participants.16 The study population was
I#QBJ# representative of the Victorian population and Australia as
@K/}Ob4
a whole.
\tTZN
The Melbourne residents ranged in age from 40 to
bFk >IifN 98 years (mean = 59) and 1511 (46%) were male. The
Qi`Lj5;\F Melbourne nursing home residents ranged in age from 46 to
$6w[h7 101 years (mean = 82) and 85 (21%) were men. The rural
Cw]&B residents ranged in age from 40 to 103 years (mean = 60)
4VINu9\V and 701 (47.5%) were men.
s
@sRdoTdF Prevalence of cataract and prior cataract surgery
62K7afH As would be expected, the rate of any cataract increases
T8E=}!68w} dramatically with age (Table 1). The weighted rate of any
rLO1Sv cataract in Victoria was 21.5% (95% CL 18.1, 24.9).
r#
MJ Although the rates varied somewhat between the three
rtf\{u9 }g strata, they were not significantly different as the 95% confidence
=4cK9ac limits overlapped. The per cent of cataractous eyes
O\;Z4qn2= with best-corrected visual acuity of less than 6/12 was 12.5%
GlYNC&,VL (65/520) for cortical cataract, 18% for nuclear cataract
y?j#;n 0 (97/534) and 14.4% (27/187) for PSC cataract. Cataract
'PRsZ`x. surgery also rose dramatically with age. The overall
j:K>3?
weighted rate of prior cataract surgery in Victoria was
s^+h
> 3.79% (95% CL 2.97, 4.60) (Table 2).
<EFA^,3t% Risk factors for unoperated cataract
asqbLtQ Cases of cataract that had not been removed were classified
.&dW?HS as unoperated cataract. Risk factor analyses for unoperated
(`PgvBL: cataract were not performed with the nursing home residents
AE!DftI as information about risk factor exposure was not
KM$Lu2 available for this cohort. The following factors were assessed
}SYR)eE\ in relation to unoperated cataract: age, sex, residence
U_ n1QU (urban/rural), language spoken at home (a measure of ethnic
v3!oY t:l integration), country of birth, parents’ country of birth (a
0o~? ]C measure of ethnicity), years since migration, education, use
9TRS#iVL+* of ophthalmic services, use of optometric services, private
&}:'YK*X health insurance status, duration of distance glasses use,
^=:e9i3u glaucoma, age-related maculopathy and employment status.
-t~l!!
N( In this cross sectional study it was not possible to assess the
B M5+;h ! level of visual acuity that would predict a patient’s having
S}6Ty2.\ cataract surgery, as visual acuity data prior to cataract
vYQ0e:P surgery were not available.
@9_H4V The significant risk factors for unoperated cataract in univariate
^R- -&{I analyses were related to: whether a participant had
=@(&xfTC ever seen an optometrist, seen an ophthalmologist or been
JDPn
diagnosed with glaucoma; and participants’ employment
87WIDr status (currently employed) and age. These significant
"ee:Z_Sz factors were placed in a backwards stepwise logistic regression
Er/h:= model. The factors that remained significantly related
nmIos]B to unoperated cataract were whether participants had ever
U
hKC:<% seen an ophthalmologist, seen an optometrist and been
kT6h}d^/^ diagnosed with glaucoma. None of the demographic factors
|a
9d]^ were associated with unoperated cataract in the multivariate
q?}
/q model.
x(oL\I_Z The per cent of participants with unoperated cataract
9e|-sn who said that they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with
l;{n"
F Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia 79
Jw13
Wb- Table 1. Prevalence of any cataracta (excluding previous cataract surgery) by age, gender and cohort
>YG1sMV-J Age group Sex Urban Rural Nursing home Weighted total
MLD1%* &0 (years) (%) (%) (%)
@yc/1u$r 40–49 Male 2.56 4.04 0.00 3.00 (1.91, 4.08)
-u)f@e Female 2.61 1.70 0.00 2.36 (1.61, 3.10)
\j
C[|LM& 50–59 Male 7.69 6.94 0.00 7.47 (5.80, 9.15)
ogD 8qrZ6J Female 6.67 7.56 0.00 6.92 (5.60, 8.24)
K"Vo'9R[_ 60–69 Male 20.7 25.0 10.0 22.0 (18.1, 26.0)
WX.6| Female 27.9 35.7 37.5 30.3 (26.0, 34.7)
NTq#'O) f 70–79 Male 43.1 58.7 39.1 48.1 (41.2, 55.1)
\Af25Mcf: Female 58.6 66.2 55.6 61.0 (56.0, 65.9)
,uz+/K%OA5 80–89 Male 74.0 89.3 92.0 79.3 (72.3, 86.3)
5e
)2Jt: Female 91.9 97.0 80.2 92.6 (86.4, 98.8)
O*qSc^ 9q 90 + Male 100.0 100.0 75.0 98.8 (96.2, 100.0)
^YVd^<cE Female 100.0 100.0 93.8 98.6 (97.0, 100.0)
ad
<z+a Age-standardized
.T!R]n (95% CL) Combined 19.7 (16.3, 23.1) 23.2 (16.1, 30.2) 16.5 (2.06, 30.9) 21.5 (18.1, 25.0)
Pv-El+e! aCortical > 4/16, nuclear > standard 2, posterior subcapsular > 1 mm2
D,$!.5OA their current vision was 30% (290/683), compared with 27%
=yT3#A~<G (26/95) of participants with prior cataract surgery (chisquared,
/NE<?t N 1 d.f. = 0.25, P = 0.62).
<V`1?9c7D1 Outcomes of cataract surgery
+-%&,>R Two hundred and forty-nine eyes had undergone prior
ucP"<,a cataract surgery. Of these 249 operated eyes, 49 (20%) were
`5SLo=~ left aphakic, 6 (2.4%) had anterior chamber intraocular
fRcs@yZnS lenses and 194 (78%) had posterior chamber intraocular
.$ o0$`} lenses. The rate of capsulotomy in the eyes with intact
|gV$ks\< posterior capsules was 36% (73/202). Fifteen per cent of
G`;YB eyes (17/114) with a clear posterior capsule had bestcorrected
6 b/UFO visual acuity of less than 6/12 compared with 43%
d17RJW%A of eyes (6/14) with opaque capsules, and 15% of eyes
M53{e;.kN (11/73) with prior capsulotomies (chi-squared, 2 d.f. = 7.21,
9`a1xnL P = 0.027).
h4iz(* The percentage of eyes with best-corrected visual acuity
|qOoL*z of 6/12 or better was 96% (302/314) for eyes without
Rfx}[!<{N cataract, 88% (1417/1609) for eyes with prevalent cataract
$>M-oNeC and 85% (211/249) for eyes with operated cataract (chisquared,
qOqU
CRUe: 2 d.f. = 22.3), P < 0.001). Twenty-seven of the
;h"St0
operated eyes (11%) had visual acuities of less than 6/18
bb4 `s0 (moderate vision impairment) (Fig. 2). A cause of this
Au\j6mB moderate visual impairment (but not the only cause) in four
,N1I\f (15%) eyes was secondary to cataract surgery. Three of these
f,
iHM four eyes had undergone intracapsular cataract extraction
63NhD and the fourth eye had an opaque posterior capsule. No one
<E&8g[x6 had bilateral vision impairment as a result of their cataract
!H^e$BA surgery.
x
b (Cd DISCUSSION
b%TLvV 9F To our knowledge, this is the first paper to systematically
/QW-#K|S& assess the prevalence of current cataract, previous cataract
n5U-D0/Q surgery, predictors of unoperated cataract and the outcomes
AzZb0wW6p of cataract surgery in a population-based sample. The Visual
FhFP M)[ Impairment Project is unique in that the sampling frame and
+oRBSAg - high response rate have ensured that the study population is
]n
'FD| representative of Australians aged 40 years and over. Therefore,
Hs#q 7 these data can be used to plan age-related cataract
Ve9*>6i&-4 services throughout Australia.
; !9-I%e We found the rate of any cataract in those over the age
DQ`\HY of 40 years to be 22%. Although relatively high, this rate is
LDgGVl significantly less than was reported in a number of previous
50R&;+b studies,2,4,6 with the exception of the Casteldaccia Eye
A>Y#-e;<d Study.5 However, it is difficult to compare rates of cataract
T\OpPSYbl between studies because of different methodologies and
$gPR3*0 cataract definitions employed in the various studies, as well
iebnQf
as the different age structures of the study populations.
@\?QZX(H Other studies have used less conservative definitions of
2S@aG%-) cataract, thus leading to higher rates of cataract as defined.
Ch0t' In most large epidemiologic studies of cataract, visual acuity
=C4!h'hz has not been included in the definition of cataract.
+'ADN!(B_ Therefore, the prevalence of cataract may not reflect the
^77X?nDz=h actual need for cataract surgery in the community.
di|5|bn7 80 McCarty et al.
e .( Table 2. Prevalence of previous cataract by age, gender and cohort
9~|hGo Age group Gender Urban Rural Nursing home Weighted total
Rdj/n : (years) (%) (%) (%)
;vp[J&= 40–49 Male 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.80 (0.00, 1.81)
yr[HuwU Female 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (
Q$:>yveR* 50–59 Male 0.68 0.58 0.00 0.65 (0.13, 1.17)
ATkx_1]KM- Female 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.41 (0.00, 1.00)
}WM!e" 60–69 Male 2.12 7.59 0.00 3.80 (1.41, 6.19)
bSm*/Q Female 2.11 3.51 0.00 2.54 (1.81, 3.26)
8=DZ;]XD. 70–79 Male 8.22 9.85 8.70 8.75 (6.38, 11.1)
D&/~lhyNZ Female 7.21 7.86 7.02 7.41 (5.36, 9.46)
X{-901J1 80–89 Male 25.0 30.0 14.3 26.2 (17.0, 35.4)
~`!{5:v Female 27.9 25.6 18.3 26.7 (20.2, 33.3)
x2$Y"b?vz 90 + Male 0.00 16.7 66.7 9.19 (0.00, 21.5)
ODyKS; Female 58.3 100.0 26.9 63.1 (44.4, 81.8)
DEN (pA\ Age-standardized
.:A&5Y- (95% CL) Combined 3.31 (2.70, 3.93) 4.36 (2.67, 6.06) 2.26 (0.82, 3.70) 3.79 (2.97, 4.60)
bc%
N !d Figure 2. Visual acuity in eyes that had undergone cataract
WX}pBmU surgery, n = 249. h, Presenting; j, best-corrected.
.NRSBk Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia 81
+H6
cZ, The weighted prevalence of prior cataract surgery in the
;(0|2I'" Visual Impairment Project (3.6%) was similar to the crude
WEsX+okj rate in the Beaver Dam Eye Study4 (3.1%), but less than the
i_ z4;%#? crude rate in the Blue Mountains Eye Study6 (6.0%).
' "I-! + However, the age-standardized rate in the Blue Mountains
p$!Q?&AV/ Eye Study (standardized to the age distribution of the urban
g;._Q Visual Impairment Project cohort) was found to be less than
D?`|`Mu the Visual Impairment Project (standardized rate = 1.36%,
L`n Ma 95% CL 1.25, 1.47). The incidence of cataract surgery in
Q%.F Mf Australia has exceeded population growth.1 This is due,
ty-erdsP perhaps, to advances in surgical techniques and lens
o@@,
} implants that have changed the risk–benefit ratio.
4#Id0[' The Global Initiative for the Elimination of Avoidable
jQ&82X%m Blindness, sponsored by the World Health Organization,
VB&`g< states that cataract surgical services should be provided that
xQ~N1Y2W ‘have a high success rate in terms of visual outcome and
q&d5V~q improved quality of life’,17 although the ‘high success rate’ is
|]+PDc% not defined. Population- and clinic-based studies conducted
[a!*m< in the United States have demonstrated marked improvement
&p_V<\(% in visual acuity following cataract surgery.18–20 We
1 TA\6a} found that 85% of eyes that had undergone cataract extraction
Io\tZXB had visual acuity of 6/12 or better. Previously, we have
P^J #;{R shown that participants with prevalent cataract in this
mz?1J4rt cohort are more likely to express dissatisfaction with their
6:3F,!J! current vision than participants without cataract or participants
]JvZ{fA%* with prior cataract surgery.21 In a national study in the
' T%70)CM~ United States, researchers found that the change in patients’
E-"b":@: ratings of their vision difficulties and satisfaction with their
+~f5dJyk` vision after cataract surgery were more highly related to
M.0N`NmS their change in visual functioning score than to their change
P2=u-{?~ in visual acuity.19 Furthermore, improvement in visual function
.j^=]3 has been shown to be associated with improvement in
t^SND{[WcM overall quality of life.22
.$N8cYu0 A recent review found that the incidence of visually
4">C0m;ks significant posterior capsule opacification following
p$1y8Zbor cataract surgery to be greater than 25%.23 We found 36%
&7L g)PG capsulotomy in our population and that this was associated
NW`L6wgl with visual acuity similar to that of eyes with a clear
{LoNp0i1a capsule, but significantly better than that of eyes with an
cByUP#hW opaque capsule.
;b;Bl:%? A number of studies have shown that the demand and
J[jzkzSu` timing of cataract surgery vary according to visual acuity,
-Ta|
qQa degree of handicap and socioeconomic factors.8–10,24,25 We
ql(~3/kA_ have also shown previously that ophthalmologists are more
[6cf$FS9 likely to refer a patient for cataract surgery if the patient is
-@?4Tfl employed and less likely to refer a nursing home resident.7
23*OuY In the Visual Impairment Project, we did not find that any
v/~Lf i particular subgroup of the population was at greater risk of
-i*]Sgese having unoperated cataract. Universal access to health care
]/c!;z in Australia may explain the fact that people without
c);vl% Medicare are more likely to delay cataract operations in the
U]64HuL USA,8 but not having private health insurance is not associated
W:V.\ with unoperated cataract in Australia.
-mqL[ h, In summary, cataract is a significant public health problem
U}^`R,C in that one in four people in their 80s will have had cataract
R-OQ(]<* surgery. The importance of age-related cataract surgery will
@\|Fd) increase further with the ageing of the population: the
{I]>!V0j! number of people over age 60 years is expected to double in
)kvrQ6 the next 20 years. Cataract surgery services are well
A!IZIT5)m accessed by the Victorian population and the visual outcomes
BT*{&'\/ of cataract surgery have been shown to be very good.
{\ ]KYI0 These data can be used to plan for age-related cataract
%eW2w@8] surgical services in Australia in the future as the need for
wrAcVR cataract extractions increases.
*IIuGtS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
kadw1sYj The Visual Impairment Project was funded in part by grants
z4wG]]Kh* from the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, the
L-VisZ-FK National Health and Medical Research Council, the Ansell
UYvdzCUh Ophthalmology Foundation, the Dorothy Edols Estate and
6@-O#,]J the Jack Brockhoff Foundation. Dr McCarty is the recipient
,QPo%{:p of a Wagstaff Fellowship in Ophthalmology from the Royal
'.IR|~ Y Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital.
?$~5ti#\ REFERENCES
5;X3{$y 1. Keeffe JE, Taylor HR. Cataract surgery in Australia 1985–94.
}$@ EpM Aust. N.Z. J. Ophthalmol. 1996; 24: 313–17.
_l=X?/ 2. Sperduto RD, Hiller R. The prevalence of nuclear, cortical,
OpLUmn and posterior subcapsular lens opacities in a general population
yt#~n_ sample. Ophthalmology 1984; 91: 815–18.
]+d>;$O 3. Maraini G, Pasquini P, Sperduto RD et al. Distribution of lens
5q
_n69b opacities in the Italian-American case–control study of agerelated
/dwj:g0y cataract. Ophthalmology 1990; 97: 752–6.
A@)ou0[n@ 4. Klein BEK, Klein R, Linton KLP. Prevalence of age-related
jh"YHe/X lens opacities in a population. The Beaver Dam Eye Study.
8XD_p);Oy Ophthalmology 1992; 99: 546–52.
hFMT@Gy 5. Guiffrè G, Giammanco R, Di Pace F, Ponte F. Casteldaccia eye
Ah_0o_Di study: prevalence of cataract in the adult and elderly population
x\5v^$ of a Mediterranean town. Int. Ophthalmol. 1995; 18:
M"5S 363–71.
PE<(eIr 6. Mitchell P, Cumming RG, Attebo K, Panchapakesan J.
/-&2>4I Prevalence of cataract in Australia. The Blue Mountains Eye
Lrq e:\ Study. Ophthalmology 1997; 104: 581–8.
`gz/?q
7. Keeffe JE, McCarty CA, Chang WP, Steinberg EP, Taylor HR.
lf}%^od~6 Relative importance of VA, patient concern and patient
4%5 + lifestyle on referral for cataract surgery. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis.
zj2l&)N Sci. 1996; 37: S183.
l(d3N4iz 8. Curbow B, Legro MW, Brenner MH. The influence of patientrelated
tC\(H=ecP variables in the timing of cataract extraction. Am. J.
H0
-v^H>^ Ophthalmol. 1993; 115: 614–22.
i/RA/q 9. Sletteberg OH, Høvding G, Bertelsen T. Do we operate too
F.-:4m(Z many cataracts? The referred cataract patients’ own appraisal
0,j!* of their need for surgery. Acta Ophthalmol. Scand. 1995; 73:
DeTLh($\ 77–80.
{9-n3j} 10. Escarce JJ. Would eliminating differences in physician practice
t(p}0}Pp style reduce geographic variations in cataract surgery rates?
uA~?z:~= Med. Care 1993; 31: 1106–18.
[Nu py,v 11. Livingston PM, Carson CA, Stanislavsky YL, Lee SE, Guest
^CW{`eBwk CS, Taylor HR. Methods for a population-based study of eye
Z+2 j( disease: the Melbourne Visual Impairment Project. Ophthalmic
qe |U*K
2_ Epidemiol. 1994; 1: 139–48.
i!yE#zew 12. Taylor HR, West SK. A simple system for the clinical grading
h_15 " rd of lens opacities. Lens Res. 1988; 5: 175–81.
hkx (r5o 82 McCarty et al.
L u1pxL 13. Cochran WG. Sampling Techniques. New York: John Wiley &
Y{9xF8#
Sons, 1977; 249–73.
O3tw@ &k 14. Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical Methods in Cancer Research. Volume
3f(tb%pa5 II – the Design and Analysis of Cohort Studies. Lyon: International
##nC@h@ Agency for Research on Cancer; 1987; 52–61.
xc,Wm/[
15. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 1996 Census of Population and
7KN+ @6!x Housing. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1997.
&/(JIWc1su 16. Livingston PM, Lee SE, McCarty CA, Taylor HR. A comparison
3,1HD_ of participants with non-participants in a populationbased
+ P<#6<gR epidemiologic study: the Melbourne Visual Impairment
{\gpXVrn_ Project. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 1997; 4: 73–82.
3EH7HW 17. Programme for the Prevention of Blindness. Global Initiative for the
FT\%=>{ Elimination of Avoidable Blindness. Geneva: World Health
U\-=
|gQ' Organization, 1997.
C(kL=WD 18. Applegate WB, Miller ST, Elam JT, Freeman JM, Wood TO,
1v 4M* Gettlefinger TC. Impact of cataract surgery with lens implantation
6N[X:F
3`, on vision and physical function in elderly patients.
ATjE8!gO! JAMA 1987; 257: 1064–6.
eU\XAN#@ 19. Steinberg EP, Tielsch JM, Schein OD et al. National Study of
+*wr=9> Cataract Surgery Outcomes. Variation in 4-month postoperative
ijgm-1ECk3 outcomes as reflected in multiple outcome measures.
r?/!VO-*N Ophthalmology 1994; 101:1131–41.
f dJ<(i]7W 20. Klein BEK, Klein R, Moss SE. Change in visual acuity associated
!\!j?z=O8 with cataract surgery. The Beaver Dam Eye Study.
b-Ru UfUn0 Ophthalmology 1996; 103: 1727–31.
]q/USVj{ 21. McCarty CA, Keeffe JE, Taylor HR. The need for cataract
(*9-F
a surgery: projections based on lens opacity, visual acuity, and
c$x>6&&L personal concern. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1999; 83: 62–5.
>4J(\'}m| 22. Brenner MH, Curbow B, Javitt JC, Legro MW, Sommer A.
F>eo.|' Vision change and quality of life in the elderly. Response to
6zI}?KZf cataract surgery and treatment of other ocular conditions.
<`WcI`IAb Arch. Ophthalmol. 1993; 111: 680–5.
}s[`T 23. Schaumberg DA, Dana MR, Christen WG, Glynn RJ. A
7"1]5\p^g systematic overview of the incidence of posterior capsule
] !n3j=* opacification. Ophthalmology 1998; 105: 1213–21.
L_o/fTz4 24. Mordue A, Parkin DW, Baxter C, Fawcett G, Stewart M.
z0Z1J8Qq6. Thresholds for treatment in cataract surgery. J. Public Health
ij1YV2v Med. 1994; 16: 393–8.
28vQ 25. Norregaard JC, Bernth-Peterson P, Alonso J et al. Variations in
6[?5hmc"w indications for cataract surgery in the United States, Denmark,
Hp@Q Canada, and Spain: results from the International Cataract
!t}yoN
n| Surgery Outcomes Study. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1998; 82: 1107–11.