Skip to main content
Clinical Ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) logoLink to Clinical Ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)
. 2024 Mar 23;18:915–916. doi: 10.2147/OPTH.S467342

Time Savings Using a Digital Workflow versus a Conventional for Intraocular Lens Implantation in a Corporate Chain Hospital Setting [Corrigendum]

PMCID: PMC10967610  PMID: 38544500

Rombold F, Niederdellmann C, Pariti R, Khayat B. Clin Ophthalmol. 2024;18:113-119.

On page 113, Abstract, Results subheading, “The digital cataract workflow resulted in shorter mean (± standard deviation [SD]) preoperative assessments with lesser variability among individual assessments than the existing workflow (14.15 ± 1.86 vs 21.41 ± 1.18 min, respectively); with a time saving of 35%” should have been “The digital cataract workflow resulted in shorter mean (± standard deviation [SD]) preoperative assessments with lesser variability among individual assessments than the existing workflow (14.15 ± 1.18 vs 21.41 ± 2.26 min, respectively); with a time saving of 35%”.

On page 115, Results section, Preoperative Assessments, 2nd paragraph, “The overall mean (±SD) process time for the preoperative assessments was reduced in the digital cataract workflow (14.15 [±1.86] min) compared to the existing conventional workflow (21.41 [±1.18] min) with an overall time saving of approximately 35% (Table 1)” should have been “The overall mean (±SD) process time for the preoperative assessments was reduced in the digital cataract workflow (14.15 [±1.18] min) compared to the existing conventional workflow (21.41 [±2.26] min) with an overall time saving of approximately 35% (Table 1)”.

On page 116, Table 1, Preoperative assessments# row, the standard deviation values in the 3rd and 4th columns were flipped in error, 14.15 ± 1.86 should be 14.15 ± 1.18 and 21.41 ± 1.18 should be 21.41 ± 2.26.

The authors apologize for any inconvenience caused by these errors and for any confusion that may have arisen as a result. They would like to assure the readers that these corrections do not affect the results or conclusions of the paper.


Articles from Clinical Ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) are provided here courtesy of Dove Press

RESOURCES