Sir: Imaging of the abdominal wall vasculature has become an area of growing interest as a tool in preoperative planning for deep inferior epigastric artery (DIEA) perforator flaps for breast reconstruction. Significant variation in individual anatomy necessitates preoperative imaging. Advances in imaging technologies have broadened our means for exploring this anatomy, and further advances are surely pending. Ultrasound, fluoroscopy, and computed tomographic angiography have been described in the literature. Magnetic resonance angiography, an emerging imaging technique, has not yet been described in the literature in the preoperative imaging of DIEA perforator flaps but certainly warrants discussion in this role. Ultrasound has been a useful tool in the preoperative planning of abdominal wall flaps based on the DIEA. Doppler and color duplex sonography have been used to image the DIEA and perforators, but not without significant inconsistencies between imaging and operative findings.1,2 Computed tomographic angiography is a recently described technique used for improved visualization of individual perforators.3 Early studies have shown a degree of high accuracy in displaying the DIEA and perforators and a level of high concordance with operative findings.1,3 As occurred with computed tomographic angiography, the evolution of imaging technologies enhances their application in perforator imaging. The use of magnetic resonance angiography for perforator imaging has not been described in the literature; however, this application intuitively appears appropriate. The use of magnetic resonance angiography for other free flaps has demonstrated high sensitivities and positive predictive values.4 The fact that magnetic resonance angiography is free of ionizing radiation is desirable, as many patients undergoing the procedure are young (and most at risk for radiation exposure). We have begun to explore the use of magnetic resonance angiography in imaging the DIEA, with promising early results. However, the following pitfalls have emerged that should be considered in a discussion of magnetic resonance angiography. Magnetic resonance angiography typically produces images of inferior spatial resolution than computed tomographic angiography, which may make detection of perforators inferior to computed tomographic angiography. Magnetic resonance angiography is similarly less reproducible than computed tomographic angiography. These limitations are largely attributable to timing of the contrast bolus and the intrinsically higher contrast resolution achievable with computed tomographic angiography.5 The financial cost of magnetic resonance angiography is greater than that of computed tomographic angiography in most health systems, with computed tomographic angiography fully reimbursed in our public health system and magnetic resonance angiography fully charged to the patient. The scanning time is also significantly greater with magnetic resonance angiography compared with computed tomographic angiography, a burden on both the patient and the health care system, with magnetic resonance angiography accessibility subsequently limited. In addition, there will be a number of patients unable to undergo magnetic resonance angiography because of safety issues. Despite these limitations of magnetic resonance angiography, the radiation benefit of magnetic resonance angiography will lead to further interest in optimizing the technique. Advances in computed tomographic angiography scanning techniques have already lowered the effective radiation dose to less than that of other abdominal computed tomographic scans, and with continuing modifications, this dose may continue to fall.1,3 There may certainly be a role for selective use of each modality based on preoperative factors. Magnetic resonance angiography is an area of much promise, and preliminary study results are pending. There is no doubt that these issues will continue to arise with future technologies yet to emerge into clinical use. Warren M. Rozen, M.B.B.S., P.G.Dip.Surg.Anat. Jack Brockhoff Reconstructive Plastic Surgery Research Unit University of Melbourne Damien L. Stella, M.B.B.S., F.R.A.N.Z.C.R. Timothy J. Phillips, M.B.B.S., P.G.Dip.Surg.Anat. Department of Radiology Royal Melbourne Hospital Mark W. Ashton, M.B.B.S., M.D. Russell J. Corlett, M.B.B.S., F.R.A.C.S. G. Ian Taylor, M.B.B.S., M.D., A.O. Jack Brockhoff Reconstructive Plastic Surgery Research Unit University of Melbourne Parkville, Victoria, Australia DISCLOSURE The authors declare that there is no source of financial or other support or any financial or professional relationships that might pose a competing interest.