You're viewing our updated article page. If you need more time to adjust, you can return to the old layout.

CORRECTION article

Front. Med., 28 October 2022

Sec. Intensive Care Medicine and Anesthesiology

Volume 9 - 2022 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.1054415

Corrigendum: Case series: Video-assisted minimally invasive cardiac surgery during pregnancy

  • 1. Department of Anesthesiology, Guangdong Cardiovascular Institute & Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China

  • 2. College of Medicine, Shantou University, Shantou, China

  • 3. Department of Operation Room, Guangdong Cardiovascular Institute & Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China

  • 4. Department of Anesthesiology, Linzhi People's Hospital, Linzhi, China

Article metrics

View details

737

Views

391

Downloads

In the published article, there was an error in Table 2 as published. The correct data should be yes for the pulsatile perfusion in case 4. The corrected and its caption appear below.

Table 2

Case no. Intervention Intubation Total operation time (minutes) CPB time (minutes) Aortic cross-clamp time (minutes) Lowest core temperature (°C) Pulsatile perfusion
1 Mitral valve replacement Double lumen tube 145 75 47 36.0 Yes
2 Mitral valve replacement Single lumen tube 165 92 64 36.0 Yes
3 Mitral valvuloplasty Double lumen tube 170 88 68 36.0 Yes
4 Mitral valve replacement Double lumen tube 133 67 43 36.0 Yes
5 Left atrial myxoma excision Double lumen tube 135 46 21 35.7 No

Intraoperative information of five patients undergoing MICS during pregnancy.

In the published article, there was an error in Table 3 as published. The Extubation time after surgery in Case no. 1 should be “7” h, and the Blood transfusion for Case no. 2 should be “2U blood transfusion.” The corrected Table 3 and its caption appear below.

Table 3

Case no. Extubation time after surgery (hours) Complication Blood transfusion Length of stay (days) Maternal mortality Gestational age when pregnancy termination (weeks) Fetal outcomes
1 7 No No 11 No 20 Abortion
2 5 No 2U RBC 13 No 35 Abortion due to fetal cerebral anomaly
3 5 No No 18 No 37 Normal Term Infant
4 10 Atrial fibrillation* No 22 No 37 Normal Term Infant
5 1 No 2U RBC 13 No 26 Abortion due to fetal chromosomal abnormality

Postoperative information of five patients undergoing MICS during pregnancy.

*

Four days after the surgery, the patient had an episode of acute atrial fibrillation with heart rate of 171 bpm. The sinus rhythm was returned with a heart rate of 92 bpm after the Valsava maneuver twice. One day after the first episode, the patients felt palpation with no reason and the ECG revealed a rapid onset of atrial fibrillation with a heart rate of 175 bpm. Antiarrhythmic drugs (12.5 mg beta-blocker and 0.2 mg deslanoside) were given and the episode was terminated. Beta-blocker was used to maintain the sinus rhythm.

In the published article, there was an error. A correction has been made to Perioperative management strategy, Paragraph 1. This sentence previously stated:

“Sevoflurane, propofol, dexmedetomidine, and rocuronium were used for anesthetic maintenance with certain level of Nacrotrend Bis values between 40 and 60.”

The corrected sentence appears below:

“Sevoflurane, propofol, dexmedetomidine, and rocuronium were used for anesthetic maintenance with certain level of Nacrotrend values between 40 and 60.”

In the published article, there was an error.

A correction has been made to Perioperative management strategy, Paragraph 1. This sentence previously stated:

“After heparinization, a 24 Fr venous cannula and 19 Fr arterial cannula were placed in the right femoral vein and artery.”

The corrected sentence appears below:

“After heparinization, venous cannula and arterial cannula were placed in the right femoral vein and artery.”

In the published article, there was an error. A correction has been made to Perioperative management strategy, Paragraph 1. This sentence previously stated:

“the thoracoscopy was inserted via the 5th intercostal space.”

The corrected sentence appears below:

“the thoracoscopy was inserted via the 4th or 5th intercostal space.”

The authors apologize for these errors 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

minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS), video-assisted, pregnancy, cardiopulmonary bypass, perioperative management

Citation

Lu A, Ye Y, Hu J, Wei N, Wei J, Lin B and Wang S (2022) Corrigendum: Case series: Video-assisted minimally invasive cardiac surgery during pregnancy. Front. Med. 9:1054415. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.1054415

Received

26 September 2022

Accepted

11 October 2022

Published

28 October 2022

Volume

9 - 2022

Edited and reviewed by

Ata Murat Kaynar, University of Pittsburgh, United States

Updates

Copyright

*Correspondence: Sheng Wang

†These authors have contributed equally to this work and share first authorship

This article was submitted to Intensive Care Medicine and Anesthesiology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Medicine

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.

Outline

Cite article

Copy to clipboard


Export citation file


Share article

Article metrics