In the published article, there was an error in Table 2 as published. The margin status of pathology in the table was 240 (96.8%) in the CNSM group and 32 (94.1%) in the RNSM group (p = 0.404). The correct values of margin status are 245 (98.8%) in the CNSM group and 33 (97.1%) in the RNSM group (p = 0.423). The corrected Table 2 Surgical methods and post-operative outcomes and its caption “Surgical methods and post-operative outcomes” appear below.
Table 2
| CNSM | RNSM | p-valueb | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (n = 270) | (n = 41) | |||
| Hospital stay (days) | 12 ± 3 | 14 ± 4 | 0.001c | |
| Total operation time (min) | 303.9 ± 195.9 | 308.9 ± 75.5 | < 0.001 c | |
| Mastectomy time (min) | 104.5 ± 40.5 | 181.5 ± 44.7 | < 0.001 c | |
| Console time (min) | – | 64 ± 40 | – | |
| Reconstruction time (min) | 196.8 ± 182.5 | 140.5 ± 52.5 | 0.019 c | |
| Operation site | Left | 139 (51.5) | 19 (46.3) | 0.616 |
| Right | 131 (48.5) | 22 (53.7) | ||
| Reconstruction types | T/E | 190 (70.4) | 21 (51.2) | < 0.001 |
| DTI | 5 (1.9) | 20 (48.8) | ||
| TRAM | 73 (27.0) | 0 (0.0) | ||
| LD | 2 (0.7) | 0 (0.0) | ||
| Incision types | IMF | 51 (18.9) | 0 (0.0) | < 0.001 |
| Radial | 32 (11.9) | 0 (0.0) | ||
| Upper-periareolar with extension | 120 (44.4) | 0 (0.0) | ||
| Lower-periareolar with extension | 52 (19.3) | 0 (0.0) | ||
| Circumareolar | 3 (1.1) | 0 (0.0) | ||
| Elliptical | 12 (4.4) | 0 (0.0) | ||
| Lateral or axillary | 0 (0.0) | 41 (100.0) | ||
| SLNBa | No | 20 (7.7) | 2 (5.9) | > 0.99 |
| Yes | 239 (92.3) | 32 (94.1) | ||
| ALNDa | No | 224 (86.5) | 31 (91.2) | 0.592 |
| Yes | 35 (13.5) | 3 (8.8) | ||
| Margin statusa | No | 245 (98.8) | 33 (97.1) | 0.423 |
| Yes | 3 (1.2) | 1 (2.9) | ||
Surgical methods and post-operative outcomes.
Values are represented as mean ± SD or number (percentage). ALND, axillary lymph node dissection; CNSM, conventional nipple-sparing mastectomy; DTI, direct-to-implant; IMF, inframammary fold; LD, latissimus dorsi flap; RNSM, robot-assisted nipple-sparing mastectomy; SLNB, sentinel lymph node biopsy; T/E, tissue expander; TRAM, transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous flap.
29 cases of benign disease or BRCA mutation carriers were not included (n = 282).
Chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test.
Student’s t test or Mann Whitney test.
The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Summary
Keywords
breast neoplasms, robotic mastectomy, nipple-sparing mastectomy, minimal invasive surgery, nipple necrosis
Citation
Lee J, Park HS, Lee H, Lee DW, Song SY, Lew DH, Kim JY, Park S and Kim SI (2022) Corrigendum: Post-operative complications and nipple necrosis rates between conventional and robotic nipple-sparing mastectomy. Front. Oncol. 12:985507. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.985507
Received
05 July 2022
Accepted
25 July 2022
Published
16 August 2022
Volume
12 - 2022
Edited and reviewed by
Gianluca Franceschini, Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic (IRCCS), Italy
Updates
Copyright
© 2022 Lee, Park, Lee, Lee, Song, Lew, Kim, Park and Kim.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Hyung Seok Park, hyungseokpark.md@gmail.com; imgenius@yuhs.ac
This article was submitted to Surgical Oncology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Oncology
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.