Skip to content

Cataract statistics

Last curated: 2026-08-31. Figures are source-specific. Populations, acuity thresholds, attribution rules and follow-up differ; conflicting estimates are shown side by side and are never averaged.

Global burden

Figure Estimate (95% interval where reported) Population/year Method Source
Cataract blindness 15.2 million (12.7–18.0) Adults ≥50 years, 2020 Hierarchical models from population surveys GBD cause analysis, PMID 33275949
Cataract moderate/severe vision impairment 78.8 million (67.2–91.4) Adults ≥50 years, 2020 Same model GBD cause analysis, PMID 33275949
Cataract blindness 17.0 million; 39.6% of all blindness All ages, 2020 Systematic review/meta-analysis and modelling Vision Loss Expert Group, PMID 38461217
Cataract moderate/severe vision impairment 83.5 million; 28.3% of all MSVI All ages, 2020 Same model Vision Loss Expert Group, PMID 38461217
Female share of cataract blindness/MSVI 60% / 59% All ages, 2020 Same model Vision Loss Expert Group, PMID 38461217
Change in cataract-blind count +29.7% Global, 1990–2020 Modelled trend Vision Loss Expert Group, PMID 38461217
Change in cataract-related MSVI count +93.1% Global, 1990–2020 Modelled trend Vision Loss Expert Group, PMID 38461217
Change in age-standardized cataract blindness prevalence −27.5% Global, 1990–2020 Modelled trend Vision Loss Expert Group, PMID 38461217
Avoidable blindness prevalence change −15.4% (−16.8 to −14.3) Adults ≥50, 2010–2019 Cataract + undercorrected refractive error model GBD cause analysis, PMID 33275949
Avoidable blindness case-count change +10.8% (8.9–12.4) Adults ≥50, 2010–2019 Same model GBD cause analysis, PMID 33275949
Avoidable MSVI case-count change +31.5% (30.0–33.1) Adults ≥50, 2010–2019 Same model GBD cause analysis, PMID 33275949
All-cause blindness 43.3 million (37.6–48.4) Global, 2020 Systematic review and hierarchical model GBD vision analysis, PMID 33275950
Projected all-cause blindness 61.0 million (52.9–69.3) Global, 2050 Forecast model GBD vision analysis, PMID 33275950
Cataract MSVI (earlier VLEG model) 52.6 million (80% UI 18.2–109.6) in 2015; 57.1 million (17.9–124.1) projected 2020 All ages Global Vision Database regression models Flaxman 2017, PMID 29032195
Cataract blindness (earlier VLEG model) 12.6 million (3.4–28.7) in 2015; 13.4 million (3.3–31.6) projected 2020 All ages Same model Flaxman 2017, PMID 29032195

Why two 2020 cataract estimates differ. The 15.2-million estimate is restricted to adults aged 50 years or older; the 17.0-million estimate covers all ages and uses a later cataract-specific synthesis. They are not competing measurements of an identical denominator (PMIDs: 33275949, 38461217).

Access, coverage and inequality

Indicator Estimate Population/year Method Source
Effective cataract surgical coverage by education 31.0% in illiterate participants; 59.7% after class 10 education 31 Indian districts District surveys Gupta 2024, PMID 38622863
Typical cataract surgical coverage Around 50% or lower in most countries reviewed Global evidence to review date Review of published coverage Hashemi 2025, PMID 39638415
Economic-estimate geography 103/155 regional estimates (66%) from high-income countries Vision-impairment economic literature Systematic review Marques 2022, PMID 35340626
Cataract surgical affordability index 17%–189% in developed; 29%–133% in developing countries Multi-country Cost-effectiveness/affordability synthesis Lansingh 2007, PMID 17383730
CSR association with development CSR correlated with HDI and GDP per capita 152 countries, longitudinal Ecological analysis Yan 2019, PMID 30362287
Global eCSC (6/18 threshold) 48.2% (39.7–57.2) in 2025; predicted +8.4 percentage points (8.1–8.6) 2020→2030, from 43.9% to 52.3% against a 30-point target Adults ≥50; 233 datasets, 68 countries, 2003–24 Mixed-effects logistic regression on population-based surveys McCormick 2026, PMID 41687671
eCSC country range 2.1% (0.9–3.4) Burundi 2024 to 77.7% (72.9–82.5) Qatar 2023 Adults ≥50 Same McCormick 2026, PMID 41687671
Uncorrected refractive error share of non-good postoperative outcomes Median 26.4% per survey; correcting it estimated to raise eCSC(6/12) by a median 3.7 percentage points Same Same McCormick 2026, PMID 41687671
eCSC by income stratum High income 60.5% (IQR 55.6–65.4, n=2 surveys); low income 14.8% (IQR 8.3–20.7, n=14 surveys) 148 RAAB surveys, 55 countries Secondary analysis McCormick 2022, PMID 36240806
eCSC sex gap Risk difference 3.2% (95% CI 2.3–4.1); risk ratio 1.20 (1.15–1.25) favouring men Same 148 surveys Pooled analysis McCormick 2022, PMID 36240806
eCSC relative quality gap 10.8% (Argentina 2013: CSC 65.7%, eCSC 58.6%) to 73.4% (Guinea-Bissau 2010: CSC 14.3%, eCSC 3.8%) Same Same McCormick 2022, PMID 36240806
Effective cataract surgical coverage, India eCSC 36.7% (33.6–39.9) vs CSC 57.3% (53.3–61.2); relative quality gap 36.0% 31 districts, RAAB pooled 2015–19, ≥50 y District surveys Gupta 2024, PMID 38622863
Cataract surgical coverage vs outcome, Hungary CSC (VA<3/60) 90.0%; good visual outcome in only 79.5% of operated eyes; ocular comorbidity caused 78.1% of poor outcomes 3,523 examined, ≥50 y National RAAB Sándor 2020, PMID 32309181

Coverage is threshold-dependent: conventional cataract surgical coverage counts surgery among people judged to need it, whereas effective coverage additionally requires a good visual outcome. Neither is equivalent to raw cataract surgical rate.

Intraoperative and postoperative complication rates

Outcome Estimate Population/follow-up Method Source
Posterior capsule rupture 31,749/2,853,376 (1.1%); annual range 0.60–1.65%, declining (P<.001) EUREQUO 2008–2018 Register-based cross-sectional Segers 2022, PMID 34074994
PCR risk factors Corneal opacities OR 3.21 (3.02–3.41); diabetic retinopathy 2.74 (2.59–2.90); poor preoperative acuity 1.98 (1.88–2.07); white cataract 1.87 (1.72–2.03) Same Multivariate logistic regression Segers 2022, PMID 34074994
Outcomes after PCR CDVA 0.13 ± 0.21 vs 0.05 ± 0.16 logMAR; absolute prediction error 1.15 ± 1.60 vs 0.41 ± 0.45 D; corneal oedema aOR 2.80 (2.27–3.45); endophthalmitis aOR 4.40 (2.48–7.81); uncontrolled IOP aOR 14.58 (11.16–19.06) 12,196 PCR cases in 1,371,743 EUREQUO surgeries Register-based Segers 2022, PMID 35179858
PCR and acuity loss OR 5.74 for doubling of visual angle — the only modifiable adverse risk indicator 55,567 UK operations, 406 surgeons Multicentre electronic audit Sparrow 2012, PMID 22441022
Dropped nucleus 1,221/1,715,348 (0.071%), decreasing over time EUREQUO 2008–2018 Register-based Lundström 2020, PMID 32126043
Cataract surgery after previous vitrectomy 19,416/1,715,348 (1.1%); CDVA ≥0.5 in 82.8% vs 95.6%; absolute prediction error 0.52 vs 0.43 D EUREQUO, 15 countries Register-based Lundström 2020, PMID 32649433
Anaesthesia and PCR risk vs topical Sub-Tenon OR 0.80 (0.71–0.91); regional 0.74 (0.71–0.78); general 0.53 (0.50–0.56); intracameral 0.76 (0.64–0.90). Endophthalmitis with regional vs topical OR 0.60 (0.44–0.82) 1,354,036 EUREQUO surgeries Register-based, multivariate Segers 2022, PMID 36449673
Late in-the-bag IOL dislocation Cumulative risk 0.1% at 5 and 10 y, 0.2% at 15 y, 0.7% at 20 y, 1.7% at 25 y 14,471 extractions in 9,577 residents, Olmsted County 1980–2009 Population-based cohort with nested case-control Pueringer 2011, PMID 21683329
Positive dysphotopsia Up to 67% immediately; 2.2% persisting at 1 year; surgery indicated in 0.07% Review Narrative synthesis Pusnik 2022, PMID 36676002
Negative dysphotopsia Up to 26% early; 0.13–3% persisting at 1 year Same Same Pusnik 2022, PMID 36676002

PCR is the pivot: it is the commonest serious intraoperative event, the strongest modifiable predictor of acuity loss, and the multiplier for endophthalmitis, corneal oedema and uncontrolled IOP (PMIDs: 34074994, 35179858, 22441022).

Endophthalmitis and prophylaxis

Outcome Estimate Population/follow-up Method Source
Total postoperative endophthalmitis 29/16,603; 20 proven infective Multicentre cataract surgery trial Randomized 2×2 factorial ESCRS 2007, PMID 17531690
Risk without intracameral cefuroxime OR 4.92 (1.87–12.9) Same trial Multivariable analysis ESCRS 2007, PMID 17531690
Risk with clear-corneal vs scleral-tunnel incision OR 5.88 (1.34–25.9) Same trial Multivariable analysis ESCRS 2007, PMID 17531690
Risk with surgical complication OR 4.95 (1.68–14.6) Same trial Multivariable analysis ESCRS 2007, PMID 17531690
Pooled postoperative endophthalmitis 4,502/6,809,732 eyes (0.066%) 51 studies Network meta-analysis Kato 2022, PMID 36258003
Intracameral route OR 0.19 (99.4% CI 0.12–0.30) Same network Route sensitivity analysis Kato 2022, PMID 36258003
Weighted incidence with cefuroxime 0.0332% Comparative prophylaxis studies Meta-analysis Bowen 2018, PMID 29326317
Weighted incidence with moxifloxacin 0.0153% Same synthesis Meta-analysis Bowen 2018, PMID 29326317
Weighted incidence with vancomycin 0.0106% Same synthesis Meta-analysis, predominantly non-randomized Bowen 2018, PMID 29326317
Endophthalmitis with vs without postoperative topical antibiotic after intracameral prophylaxis 0.016% vs 0.017% Large service study Observational comparison Rathi 2020, PMID 33120637

The antibiotic rankings above are not equally certain: cefuroxime has direct randomized evidence; agent-to-agent rankings are heavily influenced by observational data and must not be read as a randomized league table (PMIDs: 17531690, 36258003).

Posterior capsule opacification and retinal/macular outcomes

Outcome Estimate Population/follow-up Method Source
Any early PCO 29.93% 1,039 eyes, 3 months Prospective imaging cohort Gu 2022, PMID 34727350
Grade 3–4 early PCO 2.98% Same cohort Graded retroillumination imaging Gu 2022, PMID 34727350
PCO after prior vitrectomy OR 2.664 Same cohort Multivariable model Gu 2022, PMID 34727350
PCO with <180° capsulorhexis–IOL overlap OR 5.403 Same cohort Multivariable model Gu 2022, PMID 34727350
Nd:YAG at 1 year, sharp vs round edge OR 0.30 (0.05–1.74) 742 eyes in 6 studies Cochrane meta-analysis Maedel 2021, PMID 34398965
Nd:YAG at 3 years, sharp vs round edge RR 0.21 (0.11–0.41) 538 eyes in 6 studies Cochrane meta-analysis Maedel 2021, PMID 34398965
Nd:YAG at 5 years, sharp vs round edge RR 0.21 (0.10–0.45) 306 eyes in 4 studies Cochrane meta-analysis Maedel 2021, PMID 34398965
Retinal detachment after cataract surgery 36,886/5,480,448; 0.66 per 100 patients Pooled surgical literature Systematic review/meta-analysis Alshammari 2024, PMID 39172224
Clinical pseudophakic CME 0.1%–2.35% Modern cataract surgery literature Narrative synthesis Zur 2017, PMID 28351047
Pooled PCO incidence 11.8% (9.3–14.3) at 1 y; 20.7% (16.6–24.9) at 3 y; 28.4% (18.4–38.4) at 5 y ECCE and phaco with posterior-chamber IOL, pre-sharp-edge era Meta-analysis; significant heterogeneity Schaumberg 1998, PMID 9663224
Nd:YAG at 2 years, sharp vs round edge RR 0.35 (0.16–0.80); 89 fewer cases per 1,000 703 eyes in 6 studies Cochrane meta-analysis Maedel 2021, PMID 34398965
Sharp vs round edge (older review) PCO score −8.65 (−10.72 to −6.59) on 0–100 scale; Nd:YAG rate 0.19 (0.11–0.35) 66 studies Cochrane meta-analysis Findl 2010, PMID 20166069
Nd:YAG rate by IOL material Acrylic vs PMMA −24% (−29 to −20); silicone vs PMMA −9% (−17 to −1); hydrogel vs acrylic +19% (8–30); hydrogel vs silicone +28% (10–46); silicone vs acrylic 4% (−2 to 10) 23 RCTs Meta-analysis of risk differences Cheng 2007, PMID 17224119
Steroid vs NSAID monotherapy and Nd:YAG HR 0.70 (0.52–0.88, P=.001) favouring steroid after adjustment; combination vs steroid alone HR 1.11 (0.68–1.80) 13,368 analysed patients, mean follow-up 22.8 ± 15.7 months Retrospective registry cohort Hecht 2020, PMID 32061757

PCO presence, visually significant PCO and Nd:YAG capsulotomy are different endpoints. Retinal-detachment estimates depend strongly on age, axial length, posterior capsule status and duration of follow-up.

Technique, refractive and paediatric outcomes

Outcome Estimate Population/follow-up Method Source
FLACS vs phaco uncorrected distance acuity Difference −0.01 logMAR (−0.05 to 0.03) FACT trial, 3 months Randomized non-inferiority trial Day 2020, PMID 32386810
FLACS vs phaco composite surgical success 41.1% (289/704 eyes) vs 43.6% (299/685 eyes); adjusted OR 0.85 (95% CI 0.64–1.12), p=0.250 FEMCAT, 907 randomised patients (1,476 eyes), 870 analysed, 3 months Multicentre participant-masked randomised superiority trial with sham laser Schweitzer 2020, PMID 31954466
FLACS vs phaco incremental cost-effectiveness €10,703 saved per additional treatment success with conventional phacoemulsification Same trial Trial-based economic analysis Schweitzer 2020, PMID 31954466
Immediate vs delayed bilateral surgery within ±1.0 D 97% vs 98%; difference −1% (90% CI −3 to 1) 865 randomized participants Multicentre non-inferiority trial Spekreijse 2023, PMID 37201546
Societal cost, immediate vs delayed bilateral surgery €403 lower per participant Same trial Trial-based economic analysis Spekreijse 2023, PMID 37201546
Infant IOL vs aphakia median acuity at 10.5 years 0.89 vs 0.86 logMAR; P=0.82 110/114 randomized infants assessed Randomized follow-up Lambert 2020, PMID 32077909
Good treated-eye acuity in infant trial 27/110 (25%) achieved ≤0.30 logMAR Age 10.5 years Randomized follow-up Lambert 2020, PMID 32077909
Poor treated-eye acuity in infant trial 50/110 (44%) had ≥1.00 logMAR Age 10.5 years Randomized follow-up Lambert 2020, PMID 32077909
Additional intraocular surgery at 1 year, infant IOL vs aphakia 63% vs 12%; P<0.001 114 infants Randomized trial Lambert 2010, PMID 20457949
Adverse events by 5 years, infant IOL vs aphakia 81% vs 56%; P=0.008 114 infants Randomized follow-up Plager 2014, PMID 25077835
Additional intraocular surgery by 5 years, infant IOL vs aphakia 72% vs 16%; P<0.0001 114 infants Randomized follow-up Plager 2014, PMID 25077835
Short-eye formula evidence base 15 studies; 2,395 eyes; 11 formulas Eyes with short axial length Systematic review/meta-analysis Shrivastava 2022, PMID 35225507
Long-eye formula evidence base 11 studies; 4,047 eyes Axial length >24.5 mm Systematic review/meta-analysis Wang 2018, PMID 29498180

Patient-important outcomes

Outcome Estimate Population/follow-up Method Source
Falls before first-eye surgery 1.17 (0.95–1.43) per person-year Older adults awaiting surgery Longitudinal cohort Keay 2022, PMID 35702892
Catquest-9SF validation evidence Multiple language/population validations located Cataract populations Systematic review Kabanovski 2020, PMID 31862206
Patient experience after surgery High overall satisfaction with variable negative experiences Postoperative participants Qualitative study Webber 2020, PMID 32654259
Falls after first-eye surgery 0.81 (0.63–1.04) per person-year Same cohort Longitudinal cohort Keay 2022, PMID 35702892
Expedited vs delayed second-eye surgery, fall rate Rate ratio 0.68 (0.39–1.19), P=0.18 — not significant 239 women >70, 12-month follow-up Randomised controlled trial Foss 2006, PMID 16364936
Toric vs non-toric IOL Uncorrected distance acuity mean difference −0.07 logMAR (−0.10 to −0.04); spectacle independence RR 0.51 13 RCTs, 707 vs 706 eyes Meta-analysis, GRADE high Kessel 2016, PMID 26601819
Toric IOL rotational stability Pooled mean absolute rotation 2.36° (2.08–2.64) 51 studies, 4,863 eyes Single-arm meta-analysis Li 2024, PMID 38768060
Trifocal vs monofocal, uncorrected near acuity MD −0.32 logMAR (95% CrI −0.46 to −0.19) 27 RCTs, 2,605 patients Bayesian network meta-analysis Cho 2022, PMID 36136323
Refractive accuracy benchmark 71% of eyes within ±0.5 D and 92–93% within ±1.0 D of target, both arms FACT trial, 785 patients, 3 months Randomised trial Day 2020, PMID 32386810

Known conflicts and caveats

  • Cataract blindness depends on presenting-acuity threshold, attribution rule and whether one or both eyes define the person-level outcome.
  • Age-standardized prevalence can fall while absolute case counts rise with population growth and ageing.
  • Person-level and eye-level denominators cannot be interchanged.
  • PCO incidence is not interchangeable with visually significant PCO or Nd:YAG capsulotomy.
  • Registry complication rates reflect case mix, coding, follow-up completeness and surgeon/service structure.
  • Refractive accuracy must state formula, lens constants, axial-length range and percentage within a prespecified dioptre band.
  • Patient-reported improvement and acuity improvement measure different outcome domains.
  • Network meta-analysis rankings (SUCRA) are frequently reported where all pairwise comparisons are non-significant; a ranking is not a difference.
  • Registry associations (anaesthesia technique, surgeon grade) are confounded by case mix and are not causal estimates.

Provenance

Every figure on this page was re-verified against live PubMed records again on 2026-09-01. No further numerical error was found. The prior audit correction is retained for provenance: the FEMCAT surgical-success row once read "96.5% vs 96.3%"; the trial's composite primary endpoint was met by 41.1% versus 43.6% of eyes (adjusted OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.64–1.12, p=0.250) (PMID 31954466).