Error in Figure/Table
In the original publication [1], there was a mistake in Table 1, Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3 as published. The previous description was not sufficient and clear, in order to more accurately describe the operation and treatment, the corrected Table 1, Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3 are shown below.
Table 1.
Donor characteristics.
| Groups | Values |
|---|---|
| Age (year) | 41.36 ± 10.49 |
| Height (cm) | 171.27 ± 4.50 |
| Weight (kg) | 68.18 ± 6.46 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 23.27 ± 2.37 |
| TBIL (μmol/L) | 22.36 ± 6.31 |
| ALT (U/L) | 30.55 ± 16.92 |
| AST (U/L) | 39.45 ± 17.26 |
| Cholinesterase (U/L) | 4265.09 ± 1866.03 |
| Serum Sodium (mmol/L) | 139.00 ± 4.29 |
| ICU Stay (days) | 4.91 ± 1.92 |
BMI, body mass index; TBIL, total bilirubin; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; ICU, intensive care unit.
Figure 1.
(A) The hepatic veins of Segments V and VIII were retained in the right hemiliver and reconstructed with iliac artery. (B) No obvious ischemia and congestion were seen after implantation. (C) The hepatic veins of Segments V and VIII were retained in the right hemiliver and reconstructed with iliac vein. (D) MHV and RHV reconstruction.
Figure 2.
(A) After transection of the liver parenchyma and bile duct. (B) The retrohepatic inferior vena cava (IVC) was divided by longitudinal transection of the front and back walls. (C) Reconstruction of the MHV and IVC in the right hemiliver graft. (D) Reconstruction of the MHV and IVC in the left hemiliver graft.
Figure 3.
(A) Venoplasty of the right hepatic vein and inferior right hepatic vein.(B) Segments V and VIII were separately transected during the middle hepatic vein (MHV) splitting. (C) Middle hepatic veins (Segments V and VIII) were bridged and reconstructed. (D) The MHV drainage of the right hemiliver graft was good, and no obvious ischemia and congestion were noted after implantation.
Text Correction
There were several errors in the original publication.
“thrombectomy” was corrected to “thrombolytic therapy” in the original article where it appeared. The correction has been made to Abstract; Results, Paragraph 3; Discussion, Paragraph 6; and Table 4.
There was only one patient with H type of portal vein, the original article was corrected where it appeared. The correction has been made to Results, Paragraph 2; and Discussion, Paragraph 5.
Figure serial number changed and deleted. The correction has been made to Section 2.4, the “Figure 1A,B” should be updated to “Figure 1A–D”; and Section 2.5, the “Figure 2E,F” should be deleted.
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.
Reference
- 1.Ding L., Yu X., Zhang R., Qian J., Zhang W., Wu Q., Zhou L., Yang Z., Zheng S. Full-Right Full-Left Split Liver Transplantation for Two Adult Recipients: A Single-Center Experience in China. J. Clin. Med. 2023;12:3782. doi: 10.3390/jcm12113782. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]