LAUSR

Sir, We thank Dr. Innocenti and colleagues for their interest in our work [1] and comments that we find very relevant [2].We also appreciate the opportunity to respond to their comments. We have carefully read the articlesmentioned in the references [3–5]. One of them is completely out of the scope of the present discussion [5]. We see no reason for its inclusion in the letter. We would also like to congratulate the authors for their great results in very complicated cases. The classification of the tuberous breast that they introduced is of great value. The point of the present discussion is the flapmentioned in our article, which authors think is the same they described earlier [3]. Indeed, there are some similarities between their work and our work. However, there are several important factors of difference that we would like to highlight in detail. There are two different flaps mentioned in their article [3], namely the Badipo-glandular flap^ or Bdistal flap^ and the Bsecond flap,^ i.e., Bretro-areola distally based flap.^ Please, note that the Bsecond flap^ is completely different from ours. We did not need it and did not use it in our series. They used the Bsecond flap^ due to the nature of the deformity and to fill the gap produced, if we are not mistaken, by the first flap—Badipo-glandular flap.^ In fact, this Bsecond flap^ is exactly the flap they have named in the title of the article and the flap they have written about in the conclusion of the abstract section (BThe authors propose the use of the retroareola glandular flap to resolve the typical residual depression of the final mammary aspect thus to overcome the malformation completely^). Therefore, this flap seems to be the flap about which the article is written. In fact, it looks very much like the BFlap Type IV^ described by E. Muti in 2010 [6]. The first flap—Badipo-glandular flap^—resembles the one we proposed; however, the following are certain points of difference: