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

Dear Editor, We sincerely appreciate the thoughtful commentary by Kyriazidis et al on our article, “A Novel Approach to Incision Marking in Abdominoplasty Using 3D Printing Technology: A Description of Technique.”1,2 We are delighted that the innovative potential of 3-dimenational (3D) printing in abdominoplasty incision marking has generated such interest, and we would like to address the valuable points raised.1 We understand that it would be helpful to have quantitative data comparing the outcomes of using our 3D-printed tool versus conventional freehand methods. This would be particularly beneficial in assessing accuracy and time efficiency and would greatly enhance the strength of our conclusions. Because our initial study was focused on describing the technique, as mentioned in the original article’s Discussion section, we recommend that future studies conduct further research that will include objective measurements and statistical comparisons. In developing our tool, we integrated elements from 3 key methods: Borille technique,3 Paiva et al,4 and Horta et al.5 This combination allowed us to create a standardized, adjustable open-source model that improves upon the previously mentioned methods. Our tool also provides a key advantage by enabling precise symmetry measurements for both the right and left sides, ensuring consistent results. Additionally, the cost of producing our 3D-printed tool is approximately US $7, including materials such as thermoplastic polyurethane 95 plastic filament and an oil inclinometer. The key innovation lies in combining these foundational techniques, advancing the concept of standardized abdominoplasty incision marking into a more accessible and scalable format capturing the essential feature of 3D printing technology. Although further clinical validation and detailed assessments are necessary, this tool lays the groundwork for future advancements in the field, having the file in an open-sourced format amenable to further tweaking. We welcome further expert input and peer review as we continue refining this concept in the era of 3D printing, aiming for continuous improvement and affordability. Although we are optimistic about the benefits of our approach, we acknowledge that further comparative studies are needed to substantiate our claims. We appreciate the suggestion to address the tool’s potential limitations, particularly in terms of surgeon adaptability. We thank Kyriazidis et al for their constructive feedback and for emphasizing the importance of continued exploration of 3D printing technology in plastic surgery. DISCLOSURE The authors have no financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this article.