ABSTRACT
6+MZ39xC Purpose: To quantify the prevalence of cataract, the outcomes
IXmtjRv5 of cataract surgery and the factors related to
O~r.sJ} unoperated cataract in Australia.
w2!5Cb2 Methods: Participants were recruited from the Visual
Cyw
Q Impairment Project: a cluster, stratified sample of more than
a-t}L{~ 5000 Victorians aged 40 years and over. At examination
Tn~b#-0 sites interviews, clinical examinations and lens photography
_pXy}D were performed. Cataract was defined in participants who
Hw1<!Dyv had: had previous cataract surgery, cortical cataract greater
X676*;:!. than 4/16, nuclear greater than Wilmer standard 2, or
fE\;C bi posterior subcapsular greater than 1 mm2.
wX3x.@!: Results: The participant group comprised 3271 Melbourne
A
'Q
nL residents, 403 Melbourne nursing home residents and 1473
"Q:m0P
xb rural residents.The weighted rate of any cataract in Victoria
n]/7UH}(<& was 21.5%. The overall weighted rate of prior cataract
W2F %E surgery was 3.79%. Two hundred and forty-nine eyes had
ddDl~&}o had prior cataract surgery. Of these 249 procedures, 49
;NrN#<j(! (20%) were aphakic, 6 (2.4%) had anterior chamber
k{/2vV[`] intraocular lenses and 194 (78%) had posterior chamber
\BT 8-} intraocular lenses.Two hundred and eleven of these operated
x"@Y[ eyes (85%) had best-corrected visual acuity of 6/12 or
j5*W[M9W better, the legal requirement for a driver’s license.Twentyseven
TS
Q/{=r (11%) had visual acuity of less than 6/18 (moderate
0ciPH:V
vision impairment). Complications of cataract surgery
{2`:7U~| caused reduced vision in four of the 27 eyes (15%), or 1.9%
nVqFCBB of operated eyes. Three of these four eyes had undergone
J?\z{ ;qa intracapsular cataract extraction and the fourth eye had an
`%lgT+~T opaque posterior capsule. No one had bilateral vision
X\?e=rUfn impairment as a result of cataract surgery. Surprisingly, no
Ou~|Q&f' particular demographic factors (such as age, gender, rural
VU1;ZJE residence, occupation, employment status, health insurance
. Q3GA0O status, ethnicity) were related to the presence of unoperated
4{Vw30DZ cataract.
#!wL0p
Conclusions: Although the overall prevalence of cataract is
V
+/Vk1 quite high, no particular subgroup is systematically underserviced
Zy BN o] in terms of cataract surgery. Overall, the results of
t_@xzt10y cataract surgery are very good, with the majority of eyes
o(iN}. c achieving driving vision following cataract extraction.
WN?1J4H Key words: cataract extraction, health planning, health
&8R %W"<K services accessibility, prevalence
VXforI INTRODUCTION
K252l,;| Cataract is the leading cause of blindness worldwide and, in
r>N5^ Australia, cataract extractions account for the majority of all
5gP#V
K ophthalmic procedures.1 Over the period 1985–94, the rate
@ \ip?= of cataract surgery in Australia was twice as high as would be
3%Jg' Tr+ expected from the growth in the elderly population.1
\~4uEk"] Although there have been a number of studies reporting
bd[zdL#4K the prevalence of cataract in various populations,2–6 there is
@q9uU9c little information about determinants of cataract surgery in
,^MA,"8 the population. A previous survey of Australian ophthalmologists
4ed+'-"m showed that patient concern and lifestyle, rather
yBKkx@o#z than visual acuity itself, are the primary factors for referral
,5" vzGLJ for cataract surgery.7 This supports prior research which has
l^x5m]Kt shown that visual acuity is not a strong predictor of need for
t?p[w&@M2 cataract surgery.8,9 Elsewhere, socioeconomic status has
mA:NAV$!s been shown to be related to cataract surgery rates.10
^\kv>
WBE To appropriately plan health care services, information is
g+gHIb7{ needed about the prevalence of age-related cataract in the
B@ZedXi community as well as the factors associated with cataract
O@jW&-; surgery. The purpose of this study is to quantify the prevalence
1bb~u
/jU of any cataract in Australia, to describe the factors
]qCAog related to unoperated cataract in the community and to
(9x8,f0z describe the visual outcomes of cataract surgery.
c
F_hU" METHODS
V2kNJwwk Study population
%RgCU$s[> Details about the study methodology for the Visual
?#^(QR|/ Impairment Project have been published previously.11
4J*%$Vxv Briefly, cluster sampling within three strata was employed to
s
}q6@I recruit subjects aged 40 years and over to participate.
Hs<vC
L \ Within the Melbourne Statistical Division, nine pairs of
'M2Jw8i census collector districts were randomly selected. Fourteen
'S<ebwRd= nursing homes within a 5 km radius of these nine test sites
X"<t3l(+ were randomly chosen to recruit nursing home residents.
:|xV} Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology (2000) 28, 77–82
Q}ho
Y Original Article
l= % v Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia
i[)H!%RV* Catherine A McCarty PhD, MPH, Mukesh B Nanjan PhD, Hugh R Taylor MD
y8jk9Tv Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
nb0V~W n Correspondence: Dr Cathy McCarty MPH, Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, 32 Gisborne Street, East Melbourne,
L}CjC>R! Victoria 3002, Australia. Email:
cathy@cera.unimelb.edu.au qJ!&H 78 McCarty et al.
XPE{]4 g Finally, four pairs of census collector districts in four rural
z>+@pj
Victorian communities were randomly selected to recruit rural
bY7d
residents. A household census was conducted to identify
eZs34${fN eligible residents aged 40 years and over who had been a
RVtb0FL resident at that address for at least 6 months. At the time of
e>1z1Q;_uv the household census, basic information about age, sex,
>lxhXYp country of birth, language spoken at home, education, use of
\ '6hv>W@ corrective spectacles and use of eye care services was collected.
MHJH@$|] Eligible residents were then invited to attend a local
Kf
D8S
examination site for a more detailed interview and examination.
K1a$
m2 The study protocol was approved by the Royal Victorian
!Z2?dhS Eye and Ear Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee.
u-0-~TwD Assessment of cataract
85Y
E6^y A standardized ophthalmic examination was performed after
z/aZD\[_ pupil dilatation with one drop of 10% phenylephrine
Ds c{- <v hydrochloride. Lens opacities were graded clinically at the
5O<7<OB time of the examination and subsequently from photos using
<[Ae0UK the Wilmer cataract photo-grading system.12 Cortical and
q-O=Em <* posterior subcapsular (PSC) opacities were assessed on
~itrM3^"w retroillumination and measured as the proportion (in 1/16)
PJLSDIeN of pupil circumference occupied by opacity. For this analysis,
,[&@? cortical cataract was defined as 4/16 or greater opacity,
>
!k PSC cataract was defined as opacity equal to or greater than
3
4CqLPg8 1 mm2 and nuclear cataract was defined as opacity equal to
cLn&b}8' or greater than Wilmer standard 2,12 independent of visual
< I[ Vv'x acuity. Examples of the minimum opacities defined as cortical,
rAq2 nuclear and PSC cataract are presented in Figure 1.
fF37P8Ir Bilateral congenital cataracts or cataracts secondary to
@w|'ip5@ intraocular inflammation or trauma were excluded from the
:r*skV| analysis. Two cases of bilateral secondary cataract and eight
/9<zG}:B cases of bilateral congenital cataract were excluded from the
Hy~kHBIL analyses.
j4
>1a A Topcon® SL5 photo slit-lamp (Topcon America Corp.,
kKwb)i Paramus, NJ, USA) with a 0.1 mm slit beam of 9.0 mm in
Cc7PhoPK height set to an incident angle of 30° was used for examinations.
_Vr>/f Ektachrome® 200 ASA colour slide film (Eastman
X@JrfvKv[d Kodak Company, Rochester, NY, USA) was used to photograph
/ghXI"ChI the nuclear opacities. The cortical opacities were
%7WGodlXW photographed with an Oxford® retroillumination camera
U1!6%x (Marcher Enterprises Ltd, Hereford, UK) and T-MAX® 400
:^7/+|}9p film (Eastman Kodak). Photographs were graded separately
kX!TOlk3 by two research assistants and discrepancies were adjudicated
2;N)>[3*J by an independent reviewer. Any discrepancies
C,$$bmS=
between the clinical grades and the photograph grades were
Ao>] ~r0 resolved. Except in cases where photographs were missing,
x%HX0= ( the photograph grades were used in the analyses. Photograph
P5/\*~} grades were available for 4301 (84%) for cortical
AB92R/ cataract, 4147 (81%) for nuclear cataract and 4303 (84%)
F"o
K*s for PSC cataract. Cataract status was classified according to
C{7
j<O the severity of the opacity in the worse eye.
?QuD:vck Assessment of risk factors
rbfP6t:c3 A standardized questionnaire was used to obtain information
T 2Uu/^ about education, employment and ethnic background.11
Hxe!68{aR Specific information was elicited on the occurrence, duration
kOi@QLdN and treatment of a number of medical conditions,
F2jZ3[P including ocular trauma, arthritis, diabetes, gout, hypertension
'*K}$+l and mental illness. Information about the use, dose and
;la sk4| duration of tobacco, alcohol, analgesics and steriods were
M:&g5y& collected, and a food frequency questionnaire was used to
?J[m)Uo/K determine current consumption of dietary sources of antioxidants
4O}ZnE1[ and use of vitamin supplements.
Lh eOGM Data management and statistical analysis
RE~9L5i5 Data were collected either by direct computer entry with a
T \Zf`.mt questionnaire programmed in Paradox© (Carel Corporation,
S3Q^K.e? Ottawa, Canada) with internal consistency checks, or
tCZ3n on self-coding forms. Open-ended responses were coded at
(t$jb|Oa a later time. Data that were entered on the self-coded forms
vRp#bScc were entered into a computer with double data entry and
r57CyO reconciliation of any inconsistencies. Data range and consistency
>iE/t$%1 checks were performed on the entire data set.
_Z9HOl@ SAS© version 6.1 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina) was
$Sz@u"ig% employed for statistical analyses.
ollJ#i9 Ninety-five per cent confidence limits around the agespecific
-|Z[G
N: rates were calculated according to Cochran13 to
hn-+]Y: account for the effect of the cluster sampling. Ninety-five
J/OG\} per cent confidence limits around age-standardized rates
"}"hQ.kAz were calculated according to Breslow and Day.14 The strataspecific
7sgK+
ip data were weighted according to the 1996
gXrXVv<)yw Australian Bureau of Statistics census data15 to reflect the
Kyn[4Bu!? cataract prevalence in the entire Victorian population.
^tp6G Univariate analyses with Student’s t-tests and chi-squared
hDPZj#(c tests were first employed to evaluate risk factors for unoperated
^?-SMcUHB cataract. Any factors with P < 0.10 were then fitted
qeM`z into a backwards stepwise logistic regression model. For the
,drbj.0- Figure 1. Minimum levels of cortical (a), nuclear (b), and posterior subcapsular (c) cataract.
cJp:0'd final multivariate models, P < 0.05 was considered statistically
&
B
CA significant. Design effect was assessed through the use
*/8b)I}yY of cluster-specific models and multivariate models. The
PIo8m f/ design effect was assumed to be additive and an adjustment
|<:Owd= made in the variance by adding the variance associated with
Ln&'5D# the design effect prior to constructing the 95% confidence
*!mT#Vm^ limits.
7IEG%FY
T RESULTS
\my5E\ Study population
q:iB}ch5R A total of 3271 (83%) of the Melbourne residents, 403
.zm/GtOV@ (90%) Melbourne nursing home residents, and 1473 (92%)
M&93TQU- rural residents participated. In general, non-participants did
pUp&eH not differ from participants.16 The study population was
lMn1e6~K representative of the Victorian population and Australia as
S)n+E\c a whole.
&1ZqC; The Melbourne residents ranged in age from 40 to
ygN4%-[XA 98 years (mean = 59) and 1511 (46%) were male. The
\vKKq/f Melbourne nursing home residents ranged in age from 46 to
|(evDS5 101 years (mean = 82) and 85 (21%) were men. The rural
b$*1!a residents ranged in age from 40 to 103 years (mean = 60)
#8{U0
7]" and 701 (47.5%) were men.
T_=IH~" Prevalence of cataract and prior cataract surgery
_NwB7@ e As would be expected, the rate of any cataract increases
DI>SW%)> dramatically with age (Table 1). The weighted rate of any
3EVAB0/$ cataract in Victoria was 21.5% (95% CL 18.1, 24.9).
$2><4~T;|A Although the rates varied somewhat between the three
$FJf8u` strata, they were not significantly different as the 95% confidence
i 6DcLE limits overlapped. The per cent of cataractous eyes
Yg~$1b@ with best-corrected visual acuity of less than 6/12 was 12.5%
X5Fi
, /H (65/520) for cortical cataract, 18% for nuclear cataract
EE,57( (97/534) and 14.4% (27/187) for PSC cataract. Cataract
(q
0wV3Qv surgery also rose dramatically with age. The overall
TF[8r[93 weighted rate of prior cataract surgery in Victoria was
rFJPeK7 3.79% (95% CL 2.97, 4.60) (Table 2).
t
;-U
Risk factors for unoperated cataract
mne?r3d Cases of cataract that had not been removed were classified
d#W>"Cqxqa as unoperated cataract. Risk factor analyses for unoperated
|Nf90.dL cataract were not performed with the nursing home residents
Y9w^F_relL as information about risk factor exposure was not
\'>ZU-V available for this cohort. The following factors were assessed
"NMSLqO in relation to unoperated cataract: age, sex, residence
"C~Zl&3 (urban/rural), language spoken at home (a measure of ethnic
d7U%Q8?wUR integration), country of birth, parents’ country of birth (a
#Aver]eK measure of ethnicity), years since migration, education, use
4UISuYg' of ophthalmic services, use of optometric services, private
3[UB3F4K health insurance status, duration of distance glasses use,
p_:bt7
B glaucoma, age-related maculopathy and employment status.
;) (F4 In this cross sectional study it was not possible to assess the
] v8 .ym level of visual acuity that would predict a patient’s having
Zk*!,, P! cataract surgery, as visual acuity data prior to cataract
huTWoMU surgery were not available.
Xf/qUao The significant risk factors for unoperated cataract in univariate
tXg>R _\C analyses were related to: whether a participant had
y7@q]~% ever seen an optometrist, seen an ophthalmologist or been
lWRRB&8 diagnosed with glaucoma; and participants’ employment
N_Q\+x}zq status (currently employed) and age. These significant
5m\T~[`% factors were placed in a backwards stepwise logistic regression
5LVzT1j| model. The factors that remained significantly related
EpdSsfDP to unoperated cataract were whether participants had ever
Uf`~0=w seen an ophthalmologist, seen an optometrist and been
RS9mAeX4h diagnosed with glaucoma. None of the demographic factors
svj0;x5 were associated with unoperated cataract in the multivariate
rL3 f%L model.
7>$&CWI The per cent of participants with unoperated cataract
89+Q^79m who said that they were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with
<x O"
E%t Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia 79
;'7gg] Table 1. Prevalence of any cataracta (excluding previous cataract surgery) by age, gender and cohort
r{
}&* Y Age group Sex Urban Rural Nursing home Weighted total
$`'Xb (years) (%) (%) (%)
"+k^8ki 40–49 Male 2.56 4.04 0.00 3.00 (1.91, 4.08)
)|Xi:Zd5> Female 2.61 1.70 0.00 2.36 (1.61, 3.10)
Ce-D^9kC 50–59 Male 7.69 6.94 0.00 7.47 (5.80, 9.15)
x17K8De Female 6.67 7.56 0.00 6.92 (5.60, 8.24)
t/Y)% N 60–69 Male 20.7 25.0 10.0 22.0 (18.1, 26.0)
's7 (^1hH Female 27.9 35.7 37.5 30.3 (26.0, 34.7)
")
i>-1_H 70–79 Male 43.1 58.7 39.1 48.1 (41.2, 55.1)
_
YPu Female 58.6 66.2 55.6 61.0 (56.0, 65.9)
kHx6]< 80–89 Male 74.0 89.3 92.0 79.3 (72.3, 86.3)
5FQtlB9F Female 91.9 97.0 80.2 92.6 (86.4, 98.8)
x-Ug(/!^ 90 + Male 100.0 100.0 75.0 98.8 (96.2, 100.0)
A{,ZfX;SPO Female 100.0 100.0 93.8 98.6 (97.0, 100.0)
#24eogo~ Age-standardized
WB(Gx_o3 (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)
YfZ96C[a aCortical > 4/16, nuclear > standard 2, posterior subcapsular > 1 mm2
MzX4/*ba their current vision was 30% (290/683), compared with 27%
Nub)]S>_/t (26/95) of participants with prior cataract surgery (chisquared,
D
N#OLk 1 d.f. = 0.25, P = 0.62).
o{I]c#W Outcomes of cataract surgery
6E0{(* Two hundred and forty-nine eyes had undergone prior
pon0!\ZT= cataract surgery. Of these 249 operated eyes, 49 (20%) were
'%\FT-{ left aphakic, 6 (2.4%) had anterior chamber intraocular
ZCuLgCP?Z lenses and 194 (78%) had posterior chamber intraocular
rUOl+p_47 lenses. The rate of capsulotomy in the eyes with intact
+204.Yj?D posterior capsules was 36% (73/202). Fifteen per cent of
X\
bXat+ eyes (17/114) with a clear posterior capsule had bestcorrected
9W+RUh^W visual acuity of less than 6/12 compared with 43%
<V_P)b8$1 of eyes (6/14) with opaque capsules, and 15% of eyes
5ON\Ve_H (11/73) with prior capsulotomies (chi-squared, 2 d.f. = 7.21,
E
whCX'Vaj P = 0.027).
71(C@/J The percentage of eyes with best-corrected visual acuity
-lDAxp6p of 6/12 or better was 96% (302/314) for eyes without
+q-/~G' cataract, 88% (1417/1609) for eyes with prevalent cataract
#yi&-9B and 85% (211/249) for eyes with operated cataract (chisquared,
[8$K i$; 2 d.f. = 22.3), P < 0.001). Twenty-seven of the
!,z==Qp|v operated eyes (11%) had visual acuities of less than 6/18
x!RpRq9 (moderate vision impairment) (Fig. 2). A cause of this
B?pNF+?'z moderate visual impairment (but not the only cause) in four
.lE7v -e (15%) eyes was secondary to cataract surgery. Three of these
f tE2@} four eyes had undergone intracapsular cataract extraction
U2TR>0l and the fourth eye had an opaque posterior capsule. No one
0<'Q;'2* L had bilateral vision impairment as a result of their cataract
zvAUF8'_ surgery.
5wgeA^HE2y DISCUSSION
Rt=zqfJ To our knowledge, this is the first paper to systematically
B;=-h(E}vJ assess the prevalence of current cataract, previous cataract
4/:}K>S_ surgery, predictors of unoperated cataract and the outcomes
BfOQ/k)) of cataract surgery in a population-based sample. The Visual
_j Ck)3KO Impairment Project is unique in that the sampling frame and
\!Cc[n(f# high response rate have ensured that the study population is
BK;Gh0mp representative of Australians aged 40 years and over. Therefore,
p^>_VE[S these data can be used to plan age-related cataract
P|'eM% services throughout Australia.
YRRsbm{ We found the rate of any cataract in those over the age
, tb\^ of 40 years to be 22%. Although relatively high, this rate is
5%
)<e- significantly less than was reported in a number of previous
<g3)!VR^q studies,2,4,6 with the exception of the Casteldaccia Eye
4M,Q{G|e Study.5 However, it is difficult to compare rates of cataract
|0N6]%r between studies because of different methodologies and
b;k3B7< cataract definitions employed in the various studies, as well
)oAx t70 as the different age structures of the study populations.
B/F6WQdZ Other studies have used less conservative definitions of
VxA?LS` cataract, thus leading to higher rates of cataract as defined.
HY!R | In most large epidemiologic studies of cataract, visual acuity
K*id
1YY has not been included in the definition of cataract.
bpgvLZb>s Therefore, the prevalence of cataract may not reflect the
dgp1 B\ actual need for cataract surgery in the community.
1O,:fTG< 80 McCarty et al.
"\`>Ll Table 2. Prevalence of previous cataract by age, gender and cohort
/?*GJN#
Age group Gender Urban Rural Nursing home Weighted total
J1UG},-h (years) (%) (%) (%)
#AO?<L 40–49 Male 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.80 (0.00, 1.81)
ATzFs]~K; Female 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (
wSd|-e 50–59 Male 0.68 0.58 0.00 0.65 (0.13, 1.17)
l' mdj!{& Female 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.41 (0.00, 1.00)
1"yr`,}?8r 60–69 Male 2.12 7.59 0.00 3.80 (1.41, 6.19)
j/p1/sJ[y Female 2.11 3.51 0.00 2.54 (1.81, 3.26)
m xEni
y 70–79 Male 8.22 9.85 8.70 8.75 (6.38, 11.1)
\`U=pZJ Female 7.21 7.86 7.02 7.41 (5.36, 9.46)
J:Idt}@z 80–89 Male 25.0 30.0 14.3 26.2 (17.0, 35.4)
vN9R.R Female 27.9 25.6 18.3 26.7 (20.2, 33.3)
G$mAyK: 90 + Male 0.00 16.7 66.7 9.19 (0.00, 21.5)
l9t|@9 Female 58.3 100.0 26.9 63.1 (44.4, 81.8)
Lvd es.0| Age-standardized
\)`OEGdOR\ (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)
U[EZ,7n8 Figure 2. Visual acuity in eyes that had undergone cataract
#1De#uZ surgery, n = 249. h, Presenting; j, best-corrected.
{&ykpu090 Operated and unoperated cataract in Australia 81
Mj6
0?k The weighted prevalence of prior cataract surgery in the
!9t,#?! Visual Impairment Project (3.6%) was similar to the crude
e|}B;< rate in the Beaver Dam Eye Study4 (3.1%), but less than the
"IN[( crude rate in the Blue Mountains Eye Study6 (6.0%).
+3F%soum95 However, the age-standardized rate in the Blue Mountains
2h:{6Gq8 Eye Study (standardized to the age distribution of the urban
]{|
wU. Visual Impairment Project cohort) was found to be less than
%#x
l+^ the Visual Impairment Project (standardized rate = 1.36%,
I%:\"g"c 95% CL 1.25, 1.47). The incidence of cataract surgery in
Vbv)C3ezD Australia has exceeded population growth.1 This is due,
|=js!R| perhaps, to advances in surgical techniques and lens
C2{*m{
D implants that have changed the risk–benefit ratio.
&WNIL13DK The Global Initiative for the Elimination of Avoidable
l;d
4Le Blindness, sponsored by the World Health Organization,
R} X"di states that cataract surgical services should be provided that
o~7D=d?R ‘have a high success rate in terms of visual outcome and
5=#2@qp improved quality of life’,17 although the ‘high success rate’ is
+ib&6IU not defined. Population- and clinic-based studies conducted
o3$dl`' in the United States have demonstrated marked improvement
2<9&OL in visual acuity following cataract surgery.18–20 We
lVCnu>8 found that 85% of eyes that had undergone cataract extraction
]nNn"_qh had visual acuity of 6/12 or better. Previously, we have
Kr?<7vMT5 shown that participants with prevalent cataract in this
L*OG2liJ cohort are more likely to express dissatisfaction with their
$zM \Jd current vision than participants without cataract or participants
:{
iK 5 with prior cataract surgery.21 In a national study in the
A4g,) United States, researchers found that the change in patients’
{n&GZG"f ratings of their vision difficulties and satisfaction with their
VTU(C&"S vision after cataract surgery were more highly related to
%l
,CJd5 their change in visual functioning score than to their change
d_!}9 in visual acuity.19 Furthermore, improvement in visual function
7 0PGbAD has been shown to be associated with improvement in
V qcw2 overall quality of life.22
,Wtgj=1!. A recent review found that the incidence of visually
P%ThW9^vnj significant posterior capsule opacification following
KrR`A(=WL cataract surgery to be greater than 25%.23 We found 36%
9oIfSr,y capsulotomy in our population and that this was associated
5g.w"0MkY with visual acuity similar to that of eyes with a clear
3-oKY*jO capsule, but significantly better than that of eyes with an
V>`9ey!U opaque capsule.
1_TniR3z1 A number of studies have shown that the demand and
D<:zw/IRE timing of cataract surgery vary according to visual acuity,
9kwiG7V1 degree of handicap and socioeconomic factors.8–10,24,25 We
EEMRy have also shown previously that ophthalmologists are more
AQ0zs
y likely to refer a patient for cataract surgery if the patient is
-p%cw0*Y]C employed and less likely to refer a nursing home resident.7
2a;[2': In the Visual Impairment Project, we did not find that any
HYG1BfEaW particular subgroup of the population was at greater risk of
/EJy?TON* having unoperated cataract. Universal access to health care
Q+/P>5O/ in Australia may explain the fact that people without
$d,/(*Y#- Medicare are more likely to delay cataract operations in the
Jz*A!Li USA,8 but not having private health insurance is not associated
9Fw
NX with unoperated cataract in Australia.
Bz|/TV?X( In summary, cataract is a significant public health problem
B~M6l7^? in that one in four people in their 80s will have had cataract
jtq^((Ux surgery. The importance of age-related cataract surgery will
hd,O/-m# increase further with the ageing of the population: the
2Q7X"ek~[ number of people over age 60 years is expected to double in
2 <@g * the next 20 years. Cataract surgery services are well
Bj"
fUI!dK accessed by the Victorian population and the visual outcomes
=diGuIB of cataract surgery have been shown to be very good.
h(GSM'v These data can be used to plan for age-related cataract
v T
@25 surgical services in Australia in the future as the need for
P!IXcPKW53 cataract extractions increases.
G{O{
p ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
us8HXvvp{ The Visual Impairment Project was funded in part by grants
6__HqBQ from the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, the
1*'gaa&y National Health and Medical Research Council, the Ansell
.,U4 A
TO Ophthalmology Foundation, the Dorothy Edols Estate and
s,pg4nst56 the Jack Brockhoff Foundation. Dr McCarty is the recipient
\rO!
lvX of a Wagstaff Fellowship in Ophthalmology from the Royal
i2;,\FI@t% Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital.
.6I'V3:Kg REFERENCES
ykH@kv Qt 1. Keeffe JE, Taylor HR. Cataract surgery in Australia 1985–94.
+EqL| Aust. N.Z. J. Ophthalmol. 1996; 24: 313–17.
P_H_\KsH*( 2. Sperduto RD, Hiller R. The prevalence of nuclear, cortical,
B52dZ b and posterior subcapsular lens opacities in a general population
baL<|&
c sample. Ophthalmology 1984; 91: 815–18.
WTjmU=<\ 3. Maraini G, Pasquini P, Sperduto RD et al. Distribution of lens
*
UXa.kT@ opacities in the Italian-American case–control study of agerelated
!&`\MD>;~R cataract. Ophthalmology 1990; 97: 752–6.
*65~qAd 4. Klein BEK, Klein R, Linton KLP. Prevalence of age-related
wehiX7y lens opacities in a population. The Beaver Dam Eye Study.
rW_cLdh]# Ophthalmology 1992; 99: 546–52.
yD`pUE$ 5. Guiffrè G, Giammanco R, Di Pace F, Ponte F. Casteldaccia eye
}_mMQg2>= study: prevalence of cataract in the adult and elderly population
Fu\#:+5\ of a Mediterranean town. Int. Ophthalmol. 1995; 18:
R6:m@ 363–71.
T&bB8tQk 6. Mitchell P, Cumming RG, Attebo K, Panchapakesan J.
1jAuW~ Prevalence of cataract in Australia. The Blue Mountains Eye
,^ dpn Study. Ophthalmology 1997; 104: 581–8.
Nez '1 7. Keeffe JE, McCarty CA, Chang WP, Steinberg EP, Taylor HR.
@`Dh7Q Relative importance of VA, patient concern and patient
86dz Jh lifestyle on referral for cataract surgery. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis.
$2blF)uYE Sci. 1996; 37: S183.
rSm#/)4A 8. Curbow B, Legro MW, Brenner MH. The influence of patientrelated
B<$6Dj%L variables in the timing of cataract extraction. Am. J.
q|IU+r:! 3 Ophthalmol. 1993; 115: 614–22.
twK 3 9. Sletteberg OH, Høvding G, Bertelsen T. Do we operate too
'YYT1H) many cataracts? The referred cataract patients’ own appraisal
8]O#L}" of their need for surgery. Acta Ophthalmol. Scand. 1995; 73:
1=!2|D:C)i 77–80.
* kUb[ 10. Escarce JJ. Would eliminating differences in physician practice
d-W*`:Q style reduce geographic variations in cataract surgery rates?
oR7f3';?6 Med. Care 1993; 31: 1106–18.
>?G!>kw 11. Livingston PM, Carson CA, Stanislavsky YL, Lee SE, Guest
fD8GAav CS, Taylor HR. Methods for a population-based study of eye
se}$/Y}t disease: the Melbourne Visual Impairment Project. Ophthalmic
nrXKS&6 Epidemiol. 1994; 1: 139–48.
YB^m!A),I[ 12. Taylor HR, West SK. A simple system for the clinical grading
m`Z.xIA7; of lens opacities. Lens Res. 1988; 5: 175–81.
+JXn 82 McCarty et al.
G
Uh<AG*+ 13. Cochran WG. Sampling Techniques. New York: John Wiley &
[(.lfa P Sons, 1977; 249–73.
k)8*d{ * 14. Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical Methods in Cancer Research. Volume
1:./f|m II – the Design and Analysis of Cohort Studies. Lyon: International
+@7c:CAy( Agency for Research on Cancer; 1987; 52–61.
YG*}F|1 15. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 1996 Census of Population and
73{<;z}i Housing. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1997.
:`<MlX 16. Livingston PM, Lee SE, McCarty CA, Taylor HR. A comparison
3RcnoXX_ of participants with non-participants in a populationbased
@ Yo*h"s epidemiologic study: the Melbourne Visual Impairment
C8}=fa3u Project. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 1997; 4: 73–82.
?#nk}=;g8 17. Programme for the Prevention of Blindness. Global Initiative for the
{?A/1q4rr Elimination of Avoidable Blindness. Geneva: World Health
/;u=#qu(E- Organization, 1997.
q%)."10}] 18. Applegate WB, Miller ST, Elam JT, Freeman JM, Wood TO,
~4] J'E > Gettlefinger TC. Impact of cataract surgery with lens implantation
xf|C{XV@H on vision and physical function in elderly patients.
#H5+8W JAMA 1987; 257: 1064–6.
?/~Q9My 19. Steinberg EP, Tielsch JM, Schein OD et al. National Study of
3-[+g}kak? Cataract Surgery Outcomes. Variation in 4-month postoperative
8M BY3F outcomes as reflected in multiple outcome measures.
zcio\P=^|B Ophthalmology 1994; 101:1131–41.
O
>@Q>Z8W? 20. Klein BEK, Klein R, Moss SE. Change in visual acuity associated
Q]dKyMSSA with cataract surgery. The Beaver Dam Eye Study.
ws
U @hqS Ophthalmology 1996; 103: 1727–31.
c s:E^ 21. McCarty CA, Keeffe JE, Taylor HR. The need for cataract
|f$gQI!XW surgery: projections based on lens opacity, visual acuity, and
*fLVzYpo personal concern. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1999; 83: 62–5.
>]Dn,*R 22. Brenner MH, Curbow B, Javitt JC, Legro MW, Sommer A.
3S%/>)k Vision change and quality of life in the elderly. Response to
M`)3(|4 cataract surgery and treatment of other ocular conditions.
f/m0,EERk Arch. Ophthalmol. 1993; 111: 680–5.
fEGnI\ 23. Schaumberg DA, Dana MR, Christen WG, Glynn RJ. A
vJX0c\e systematic overview of the incidence of posterior capsule
w
(*}, opacification. Ophthalmology 1998; 105: 1213–21.
gTdr
24. Mordue A, Parkin DW, Baxter C, Fawcett G, Stewart M.
H}8kku>7 Thresholds for treatment in cataract surgery. J. Public Health
1>umf~%Wa Med. 1994; 16: 393–8.
]v+yeGIK S 25. Norregaard JC, Bernth-Peterson P, Alonso J et al. Variations in
\GK]6VW indications for cataract surgery in the United States, Denmark,
/8 "rCh|m- Canada, and Spain: results from the International Cataract
\J-D
@b; Surgery Outcomes Study. Br. J. Ophthalmol. 1998; 82: 1107–11.