In the original article, the letters “XXX” were published, where specific information should be substituted, in the Materials and Methods section page 1, paragraph 1, page 1, paragraph 2 and page 3, paragraph 3. The corrected paragraphs appear below
MATERIALS AND METHODS, paragraph 1
This retrospective study involved acquisition of data for all dogs undergoing OCA transplantation using OCAs provided by a single canine tissue bank (The Thompson Laboratory for Regenerative Orthopaedics, University of Missouri) and for whom follow-up data were available.
MATERIALS AND METHODS, paragraph 2
Osteochondral tissues were recovered using strict aseptic technique immediately following euthanasia (i.e., within 30 min of euthanasia), measured, and immediately placed in a proprietary medium and stored in accordance with a validated protocol (Missouri Osteochondral Preservation System; MOPS®) (15, 16, 31).
MATERIALS AND METHODS, paragraph 3
All OCAs were implanted within 56 days of donor death because a previous study has shown that all MOPS®-preserved canine donor tissue exceeds minimum essential viable chondrocyte density up to 56 days following tissue recovery (30).
The authors apologize for these errors and state that these do 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
osteochondral, allograft, transplants, cartilage repair, dogs, osteochondrosis, osteochondritis dissecans
Citation
Franklin SP, Stoker AM, Murphy SM, Kowaleski MP, Gillick M, Kim SE, Karlin M, Cross A and Cook JL (2022) Corrigendum: Outcomes Associated With Osteochondral Allograft Transplantation in Dogs. Front. Vet. Sci. 8:843760. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2021.843760
Received
26 December 2021
Accepted
30 December 2021
Published
21 January 2022
Volume
8 - 2021
Edited and reviewed by
Bruno Cozzi, University of Padua, Italy
Updates
Copyright
© 2022 Franklin, Stoker, Murphy, Kowaleski, Gillick, Kim, Karlin, Cross and Cook.
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: Samuel P. Franklin sam17franklin@hotmail.com
This article was submitted to Veterinary Surgery and Anesthesiology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Veterinary Science
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.