Level of Evidence V. This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

Dear Editor,

Regarding the letter received, here are some necessary considerations.

The author mentions, not only in relation to this text, but also in Mansur's paper [1] commentary, all the difficulties of augmentation mastopexy surgery. In fact, the paragraphs of both letters are identical, which surprises us [2].

In the sequence, the author states that we do not describe the excision of the flaccid and excess of tissue from the lower pole, for that it is enough to note that this topic is part of the Pitanguy or Arie–Pitanguy’s technique, as highlighted in the work methodology. Both techniques are known worldwide [3, 4].

Regarding the follow-up of up to 18 months after surgery, it is known to every surgeon with minimal experience of breast surgery that the recurrent ptosis and bottoming out occurs until around the 8th month of postoperative [3], so we do not see the need for a longer follow-up than that proposed by us in this paper.

We completely disagree with the observation of flatness in the lower pole of figures 9 and 12, if the reader observes and sees that the nipple areola complex is in the breast cone, which is currently being sought in augmentation mastopexy surgery [3, 4].

Regarding the concept of beauty of Brazilian women who aim to have a marked clevage, also highlighted by the author, it is worth emphasizing that this is our environment and here our work is being developed and we do not seek to standardize a unique and worldwide technique, but rather to describe our experience [3, 4].