Packer and coauthors1 present data to support the idea that an aspheric intraocular lens (IOL) (Tecnis Z9000, Pfizer) produces significantly better quality of vision than a traditional spherical-design IOL (AR40e, AMO). The improvement in quality of vision is theoretically mediated through a reduction in higher-order aberrations (HOAs), resulting in improved contrast sensitivity. Using the wavefront-guided design of IOLs to correct more than defocus is an intuitively appealing concept. Unfortunately, the data as presented do not support the study conclusions and do little to clarify the relationships between HOA, contrast sensitivity, and quality of vision. First, the sample size seems inadequate. A sample-size calculation reveals that 18 patients are needed for each IOL group for a 2-tailed analysis sensitive enough to detect a 0.15 log unit difference in contrast sensitivity with α = 0.05 and a study power of 80%. Insufficient sample sizes reduce the power of the study and potentially miss true differences, if they exist. Second, differences in contrast sensitivity may be due to a different index of refraction between IOLs, producing HOA profiles that cannot be attributed to the surface design alone. Third, comparability between the Tecnis and AR40e groups is unclear because there are no baseline data for contrast sensitivity for either group and the age disparity (contrast sensitivity declines with age2) between groups might be statistically significant. Fourth, there were no data (means and standard deviations) about improvement in contrast sensitivity between baseline and 3 months (endpoint) for either group, making it difficult to interpret contrast sensitivity differences for a single point in time (3 months). Head-to-head trials usually include comparisons of change scores over the same time period. Fifth, the magnitude of the contrast sensitivity difference is somewhat misleading. For example, the 44% contrast sensitivity difference between the 2 IOLs at 3 months is a relative percentage difference. At 6 cycles per degree, under photopic conditions, this represents a contrast sensitivity difference of 0.5%, illustrating that a large change in a small number is still a small number. Further, the clinical relevance of this type of change is unclear since there were no significant differences in contrast sensitivity at other spatial frequencies despite a marked mean increase in visual acuity in both groups. These observations are consistent with the authors' previous findings3 but are at odds with others,4 further clouding the issue. Finally, as the authors point out, there were no direct measurements of HOA in either group, so we are left to infer that contrast sensitivity differences were due to significant reductions in HOA. This conclusion is largely based on the assertion of the manufacturer of the Tecnis IOL, is not supported by the current evidence, and does not justify the conclusion that this IOL produces significantly improved quality of vision. As with refractive surgery, the full and precise meaning of reductions in various HOAs in terms of variation in contrast sensitivity, image clarity, or improved functioning in vision-dependent activities of daily living remains unclear. For example, Schallhorn reported that only 11% to 15% of the variation in HOA is explained by differences in contrast sensitivity (S. Schallhorn, MD, “Correlating Optical Aberrations to Quality of Vision After LASIK,” presented at the ASCRS Symposium on Cataract, IOL and Refractive Surgery, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, June 2002). Furthermore, the Tecnis lens represents a “one size fits all” solution, with relatively little tolerance for tilt or decentration in patients with varying degrees of HOA, diminishing the likelihood that most patients would derive a clear benefit. Wavefront-guided IOL design may be an important advance for cataract patients, particularly if it becomes feasible to customize IOL design to the individual patient. However, further studies are needed to determine its ability to improve quality of vision in ways that translate to improved functioning. Peter N. Rosen MD Michael D. Twa OD aSan Diego, CA, USA bColumbus, OH, USA