In the published article, there was an error caused by incorrect writing. A correction has been made to the Abstract of Section. This sentence previously stated:
“… however, the patients in the ESMS-mPNL group had significantly longer operation times than those in the non-ESMS-mPNL subgroup, along with marked reductions in irrigation fluid absorption, blood loss, haemoglobin loss, 12 h postoperative VAS score, mean hospitalization time, and return to work time.”
The corrected sentence appears below:
“… however, the patients in the ESMS-mPNL group had significantly longer irrigation times than those in the non-ESMS-mPNL subgroup, along with marked reductions in irrigation fluid, blood loss, haemoglobin loss, 12 h postoperative VAS score, mean hospitalization time, and return to work time.”
In the published article, there was an error in the legend for [Table 4] as published. [Caused by incorrect writing].
The corrected [Table 4] and its caption **[Comparison of operative data and complications for Non-ESMS-mPNL vs ESMS-mPNL groups.] appear below.
Table 4
| Data | Non-ESMS-mPNL (n = 46) | ESMS-mPNL (n = 46) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Operation time (min.), mean ± SD | 66.1 ± 6.2 | 68.2 ± 5.6 | 0.090 |
| Irrigation time (min) | 42.2 ± 14.1 | 52.0 ± 18.3 | 0.005 |
| Volume of irrigation fluid (ml) | 1651.9 ± 631.4 | 1245.6 ± 548.2 | 0.001 |
| Volume of fluid absorbed (ml) | 712 ± 95 | 502 ± 102 | <0.001 |
| Blood loss (ml) | 142.1 ± 93.54 | 82.2 ± 41.2 | <0.001 |
| Hemoglobin loss (mg/dl) | 1.21 ± 0.78 | 1.02 ± 0.63 | 0.044 |
| VAS score postop 12 h | 1.95 ± 0.56 | 1.66 ± 0.42 | 0.005 |
| Complications rate | |||
| Clavien 1 | 2 (4.8) | 2 (3.2) | 0.996 |
| Clavien 2 | – | – | |
| Clavien 3 | – | – | |
| Clavien 4 | – | – | |
| Mean hospitalization time (hour), mean ± SD | 53.82 ± 13.48 | 47.31 ± 12.04 | 0.017 |
| Stone-free rate (1. month) | 41 (89.1) | 42 (90.3) | 0.731 |
| CIRF rate (%) | 2 (4.3) | 1 (2.2) | 0.125 |
| Return to work time (day), mean ± SD | 12.06 ± 3.21 | 9.87 ± 2.76 | 0.001 |
| Tubeless procedure (%) | 18 (39.1) | 16 (34.8) | 0.670 |
Comparison of operative data and complications for Non-ESMS-mPNL vs ESMS-mPNL groups.
In the published article, there were some errors caused by incorrect writing.
A correction has been made to the Results of Section. This sentence previously stated:
“[A longer irrigation time (52.0 ± 18.3 vs. 42.2 ± 14.1 min) and a larger volume of absorbed fluid (712 ± 95 vs. 502 ± 102 ml) were observed in the patients in the ESMS-mPNL group compared with those in the non-ESMS-mPNL group (P = 0.005 and P < 0.001, respectively).]”
The corrected sentence appears below:
“[A longer irrigation time (52.0 ± 18.3 vs. 42.2 ± 14.1 min) and a smaller volume of absorbed fluid (502 ± 102 vs. 712 ± 95 ml) were observed in the patients in the ESMS-mPNL group compared with those in the non-ESMS-mPNL group (P = 0.005 and P < 0.001, respectively).]”
Two corrections have been made to the Discussion of Section. This sentence previously stated:
“[The ESMS-mPNL group had a significantly longer irrigation time and a larger volume of fluid absorbed than the non-ESMS-mPNL group (but these values were clinically comparable),]”
The corrected sentence appears below:
“[The ESMS-mPNL group had a significantly longer irrigation time and a smaller volume of fluid absorbed than the non-ESMS-mPNL group (but these values were clinically comparable),]”
This sentence previously stated:
“[The volume of fluid absorbed during ESMS-mPNL increased significantly compared to the non-ESMS-mPNL group, and the endoscopic surgical monitoring system might promote better fluid absorption during ESMS-mPNL than during non-ESMS-mPNL.]”
The corrected sentence appears below:
“[The volume of fluid absorbed during ESMS-mPNL decreased significantly compared to the non-ESMS-mPNL group, and the endoscopic surgical monitoring system might promote better fluid absorption during ESMS-mPNL than during non-ESMS-mPNL.]”
We apologize for this mistake and declare that this correction will not change the scientific conclusion of this article. The original article has been updated.
Summary
Keywords
standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy, mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy, endoscopic surgical monitoring system, renal calculus, retrospective study
Citation
Gui H, Wang H, Kaushik D, Rodriguez R and Wang Z (2022) Corrigendum: Mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy with an endoscopic surgical monitoring system for the management of renal stones: A retrospective evaluation. Front. Surg. 9:999166. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.999166
Received
20 July 2022
Accepted
21 July 2022
Published
10 August 2022
Volume
9 - 2022
Edited by
Frontiers in Surgery Editorial Office, Frontiers Media SA, Switzerland
Updates
Copyright
© 2022 Gui, Wang, Kaushik, Rodriguez and Wang.
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: Zhiping Wang erywzp@lzu.edu.cn
Specialty Section: This article was submitted to Genitourinary Surgery, a section of the journal Frontiers in Surgery
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.