We read with interest the article on pseudophakic pseudoaccommodation by Lincke et al.1 that included 13 eyes with fixated retropupillary intraocular lenses (IOLs). The authors failed to cite a similar study published in 2012 by Schöpfer et al.2 that comprised 51 eyes with a retropupillary fixated iris-claw IOL (Artisan or Verisyse). In the supine position, the mean anterior chamber depth was 4.01 mm ± 0.24 (SD) in the group by Lincke et al. (measured using ultrasound biomicroscopy) versus 4.31 ± 0.44 mm in the group by Schöpfer et al. (measured using A-scan). In the prone position, the mean values were 3.57 ± 0.41 mm and 4.15 ± 0.57 mm, respectively. Undoubtedly the statistically significant differences (P = .0214 and P = .0010, respectively) could be explained by the different device used and, in the prone position, by a difference in the angle with respect to the horizontal plane. (In the study by Schöpfer et al.,2 the patient was seated in forward tilted-head position.) However, it would be interesting to have the data obtained in retropupillary aphakic IOLs by Lincke et al. using A-scan in this subgroup of eyes. An additional interesting issue is the refractive impact of these IOL shifts. Lincke et al. found that in eyes with a retropupillary IOL, the mean difference in spherical equivalent (SE) in the supine position versus the prone position was −0.30 ± 0.53 diopter (D), which was not statistically significant (P = .5823). In addition, as the authors explained, reading position does not equal the prone position used in the experiment because in down gaze, the eyes are declined by only approximately 30 degrees and the change in SE would be approximately one half the difference between the sitting position and the prone position (ie, approximately 0.15 D in this subgroup of eyes with retropupillary implanted IOL). In contrast, in the study by Schöpfer et al.,2 there was a statistically significant difference (−0.37 D; P = .003). A myopic shift between −0.15 D and −0.37 D seems too small to have a real impact on the near-vision capabilities of the patients. Schöpfer et al.2 measured the amplitude of accommodation with an accommodometer (Clement Clarke Ltd.) and found amplitudes of 4.96 D in the supine position, 5.70 D in the sitting position, and 5.18 D in the prone position. However, those results were not congruent with their findings on SE changes and were much higher than those published for other IOLs (including accommodating models), as we pointed out. Thus, we suggested that the data and the technique used to obtain them by Schöpfer et al. should be verified.3 In summary, we believe the study by Lincke et al.1 adds to the body of evidence that aphakic iris-fixated IOLs (Artisan or Verisyse) shift with changes in position but that it seems to us those movements are not enough to generate clinically significant pseudoaccommodation because they induce an excessively slight myopic shift (between 0.25 D and 0.37 D). We do not agree with Lincke et al. when they conclude that such small changes are significant.