We would like to thank you for the critical analysis of our recent article “The Superficial Vein−Only DIEP Flap.”1 The purpose of this article was to share our experience with a variation of the deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap in which the superficial inferior epigastric vein (SIEV) can safely provide the only source of venous outflow. The viability of the superficial vein−only (SVO) DIEP flap has been suggested by anatomical studies, and this correlates clinically with our results.2 Since the article was written, an additional 43 SVO-DIEP flaps have been completed by the senior author, with only one flap failure to date (1.3% flap failure rate). Notably, the flaps in our study were not completed as salvage procedures (ie, the deep inferior epigastric vessels were not inadvertently damaged or ligated). However, our study may provide some reassurance to the surgeon who has inadvertently damaged the deep inferior epigastric venous outflow and the SIEV is the only remaining option. Perforator selection is a subjective, albeit critical, component of DIEP flap dissection. Our use of Acland clamps to systematically assess the flap’s viability with various permutations of perforators and/or the SIEV vessels has been very successful, and this technique is described in the article. When perforating vessels are in a row and more than one is needed for venous outflow, this is readily noted. However, we prefer not to use multiple perforators when possible to avoid the morbidity to the abdominal wall musculature and innervation. Our preference is to use the deep inferior epigastric vein (DIEV) for venous outflow whenever possible and save the SVO-DIEP for scenarios when the flap becomes congested without SIEV outflow, despite DIEV patency. The critical factor in these flaps is that the flap is significantly dependent on the SIEV for venous outflow and would not survive without its use. The argument for adding a DIEV and SIEV in parallel highlights the crux of this article: do you need to couple two veins or is the SIEV sufficient? We have shown that coupling a DIEV is not always necessary, but we are not discouraging the use of two veins; this decision should be made by the surgeon. We agree that flap size is an important consideration. In our experience, we have found the majority of larger flaps have corresponding large perforator vessels. Our average body mass index is approximately 30 kg/m2 and therefore we are typically raising larger flaps without the need to cross midline for our unilateral flaps. When we do cross midline, we do not include zone IV. If a unilateral breast reconstruction needs additional volume beyond what a unilateral flap can provide, we recommend considering stacking flaps, addition of an implant, or use of staged fat grafting. Our preference for the thoracodorsal artery and vein as the recipient vessels for the SVO-DIEP is based on senior author preference; however, we do not discourage the use of the internal mammary vessels or, as di Pompeo et al. prefer, the circumflex scapular vessels. Our backup flap options include gluteal artery perforator flaps and medial thigh–based flaps, and we therefore do not rely on preservation of the thoracodorsal vessels. We recommend that surgeons consider the DIEA and SIEV vessel length and flap orientation when selecting their recipient vessels. We thank the authors for their interest in our article and appreciate their contribution to this discussion. DISCLOSURE The authors have no financial interests to report.