The authors wish to make the following corrections to this paper [1].
In the published version, the resection rate numbers as reported by Kok et al. [2] were cited incorrectly in the Introduction section on page 2.
The sentence “Among patients operated on for LRRC, R0 resection rate using surgical navigation was 21% compared with 51% in a case control group” should be changed to “Among patients operated on for LRRC, R0 resection rate using surgical navigation was 79% compared with 49% in a case control group”.
The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
References
- 1.Groen H.C., den Hartog A.G., Heerink W.J., Kuhlmann K.F.D., Kok N.F.M., van Veen R., Hiep M.A.J., Snaebjornsson P., Grotenhuis B.A., Beets G.L., et al. Use of Image-Guided Surgical Navigation during Resection of Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer. Life. 2022;12:645. doi: 10.3390/life12050645. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Kok E.N.D., van Veen R., Groen H.C., Heerink W.J., Hoetjes N.J., van Werkhoven E., Beets G.L., Aalbers A.G.J., Kuhlmann K.F.D., Nijkamp J., et al. Association of Image-Guided Navigation with Complete Resection Rate in Patients with Locally Advanced Primary and Recurrent Rectal Cancer. JAMA Netw. Open. 2020;3:e208522. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.8522. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]