Introduction: The eye is one of the most amazing organs in the human body and the lens is one of the most impressive structures in it. It has a high protein content and a low percentage of water and yet remains optically transparent for years. Under the influence of various factors, these characteristics can change, and this may lead to a decrease in visual acuity due to the development of cataract.
Aim: The aim of this article is to compare the different classifications of cataracts that have been used in the past and up until present times and to seek correlation with the patient`s subjective sensation on the first and the 30th day postoperatively.
Materials and Methods: An in-depth and analytical literature review of the experimental and diagnostic methods used in lens diseases was done.
Results: Numerous classifications of cataracts are described in the literature, based on different criteria such as time of appearance, morphology, degree of opacification and maturity. Each ophthalmologist chooses the most appropriate classification in his practice. No formal, well-defined methodology for determining the severity of cataract progression has been formally adopted worldwide. Depending on the lens haze, the most appropriate way for surgical intervention is also determined. Modern cataract surgery is based on the phacoemulsification method, in which the operation proceeds quickly, painlessly, bloodlessly and without sutures. In the past, other operational methods have been used, which in some cases are also applicable today.
Conclusion: The classification of progression and rate of cataract development is an integral part of a patient`s pre-operative assessment but does not play an essential role in the final postoperative outcome. It is because of this that there are so many classifications that are partly overlapping. In the era of high technology there is a rapid penetration of new opportunities for operative treatment of cataracts.
Brown NAP. Lens structure and forms of cataract. In: The lens: transparency and cataract (ed. Duncan G., editor. ), The Netherlands: EURAGE Publications, 1986, pp. 3–11.
Sparrow JM, Bron AJ, Brown NAP, Ayliffe W, Hill AR. The Oxford clinical cataract classification and grading system. Int. Ophthalmol. 1986;9,207–225.
Sasaki K, Sasaki H, Jonasson F, Kojima M, Cheng HM. Racial differences of lens transparency properties with aging and prevalence of age-related cataract applying a WHO classification system. Ophthal. Res. 2004; 36, 332–340.
Tan JC, Spalton DJ, Arden GB. Comparison of methods to assess visual impairment from glare and light scattering with posterior capsule opacification. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1998;24(12):1626-1631.
Smith GT, Smith RC, Brown NA, Bron AJ, Harris ML. Changes in light scatter and width measurements from the human lens cortex with age. Eye (Lond.), 1992;6,55–59.
Lundström M, Pesudovs K. Questionnaires for measuring cataract surgery outcomes. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011;37(5):945-959.
Häring G, Dick HB, Krummenauer F, Weissmantel U, Kröncke W. Subjective photic phenomena with refractive multifocal and monofocal intraocular lenses: results of a multicenter questionnaire. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2001;27(2):245-249.
