A Novel Approach to Incision Marking in Abdominoplasty Using 3D Printing Technology: A Description of Technique

Dear Editor, We read with great interest the article by Mortada et al entitled “A Novel Approach to Incision Marking in Abdominoplasty Using 3D Printing Technology: A Description of Technique.”1 The authors present an innovative technique utilizing 3-dimensional (3D)-printed tools for abdominoplasty incision marking, which we believe merits further discussion. The concept of using 3D printing technology in plastic surgery is already widespread in many fields,2 whereas its application in surgical planning is intriguing and potentially helpful. The authors’ efforts to enhance precision and standardization in abdominoplasty incision markings are commendable, especially since previous studies have dealt with similar aims in the past.3–5 However, we find aspects of the study that warrant additional consideration and clarification. First, although the authors assert improved accuracy and consistency with their 3D-printed tool, we note a lack of quantitative data comparing outcomes between this novel technique and conventional freehand marking methods as well as time efficiency of the method. Such comparative analysis is, in our view, crucial to substantiate these claims, as previous studies did.5 We believe future studies incorporating objective measurements and statistical analysis would significantly strengthen the argument for adopting this approach. The authors describe their tool as customizable to individual patient anatomy, which is an exciting prospect. However, the fixed measurements mentioned in the article (eg, 5–9 cm width, 6 cm height) seem to suggest a more standardized approach. We feel that further studies on how the tool accommodates different body types and surgical goals would be valuable. It would be particularly interesting to understand how this tool might be adapted for patients with significant asymmetry or unusual anatomy. Although the study suggests potential cost-effectiveness, it lacks a thorough cost-benefit analysis. Such analysis is vital for surgeons and institutions evaluating new technologies, especially because most plastic surgeons do not regularly use 3D printing. A detailed examination of both upfront costs (eg, 3D printing equipment, materials) and long-term savings (eg, reduced operating time, improved outcomes) is necessary. This is particularly important when comparing the proposed method to the approach taken by Borille et al4, which shares striking similarities and appears more cost-effective at first glance. A direct comparison of these methods would provide insights into the true value of incorporating 3D printing into incision marking practices. The authors conclude that the benefits of their approach outweigh the drawbacks. However, we find this assertion somewhat unsubstantiated given the lack of comparative data and follow-up. We believe a more balanced discussion of potential limitations would strengthen the article. For instance, it would be beneficial to address how this tool might impact the surgeon’s ability to make nuanced, patient-specific judgments during marking. Despite these points of discussion, we congratulate the authors for their innovative approach to a common challenge in abdominoplasty procedures. Their work represents an important step towards integrating more sophisticated technologies into our surgical practice. The use of 3D printing in surgical planning is an exciting frontier in plastic surgery, and this article makes a valuable contribution to advancing our understanding in this field. DISCLOSURE The authors have no financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this article.