We thank Yurekli and colleagues for their letter [1] on our article [2]. However, assumptions on dynamic anatomy, aneurysm formation, and leaflet deterioration are not supported by any references from the literature and do not correspond to our experience with long-term results of external aortic ring annuloplasty for aortic valve repair [3]. Furthermore, Yurekli and colleagues refer to a nonflexible external aortic annuloplasty, which is not the aortic ring we illustrate in our work. Indeed, we use an expansible (so flexible) aortic ring annuloplasty (Fig 1 of Khelil and colleagues) [2]. The purpose of Khelil and colleagues's [2] article is to describe anatomical landmarks of the subvalvular plane for an external aortic annuloplasty; dynamic anatomy is not discussed and is beyond the scope of this anatomical work [2].We do not agree with consideration on anatomic annulus, which is the term widely accepted in literature, particularly by Anderson [4] and Sievers and colleagues [5], who suggest use of the term aortic "annulus" to describe the ring (or plane) joining the three nadirs of the semilunar leaflet attachments.Three-dimensional figures are scale drawings showing the subvalvular dissection plane line and the schematic 3-dimensional aortic annular view from the each cusps as could be seen in a flaccid heart, which was also the finding of de Kerchove and colleagues [6].