Erratum to virtual or reality: divergence between preprocedural computed tomography scans and lung anatomy during guided bronchoscopy

Virtual or reality: divergence between preprocedural computed tomography scans and lung anatomy during guided bronchoscopy

In the original article appeared on Page: 1595-1611, Vol 12, No 4 (April 2020) Issue of the Journal of Thoracic Disease (JTD) (1), three errors occurred in Table 2.

Table 2. Guided bronchoscopy platforms.

Product	Manufacturer	Technology	Peer-reviewed journal publications
superDimension™ navigation system (version 7.1 and below)	Medtronic	Electromagnetic tracking with a steerable locatable guide and working channel	Over 100 original research articles to date representing data from over 75 clinical studies (2,8)
superDimension™ navigation system version 7.2 with fluoroscopic navigation technology	Medtronic	Tomosynthesis-based fluoroscopic navigation: digital tomosynthesis reconstruction of multiple fluoroscopic images. A local registration feature uses fluoroscopy and a proprietary algorithm to update the relationship between the target and the catheter intraprocedurally	Aboudara et al. 2019 (46)
SPiN Thoracic Navigation System™	Veran Medical	Based on an external electromagnetic generator, uses tip-tracked instruments for continuous guidance in a trackable airway map, an inspiration/ expiration computed tomography (CT) scan protocol, and an algorithm to pair inspiratory and expiratory CT scans with the respiratory cycle in order to compensate for respiratory variation (respiratory gating)*	4 clinical studies (3,27,28,47) and 1 case report (48) on guided bronchoscopy with the SPiNDrive system™ for navigated bronchoscopy*. “All-in-One” study currently recruiting (30)
LungPoint™ virtual bronchoscopic navigation (VBN) system	Broncus Medical	Image-based synchronization technique (partly manual). No registration of integrated tracking method	Eberhardt et al. 2010 (12), Tamiya 2013 (13), and Sterman et al. 2015 (49)
Bf-Navi	Olympus, Tokyo, Japan	Virtual bronchoscopy. No integrated tracking method	Oki et al. 2019 (50), Ali et al. 2019 (51)
Archimedes™ VBN system	Broncus Medical	Registration is conducted using infrared cameras and radiopaque markers to create augmented fluoroscopic views (“fused fluoroscopy”) during bronchoscopic transparenchymal nodule access	Herth et al. 2015 (6) and Harzheim et al. 2016 (52)
LungVision™	BodyVision Medical	Uses augmented fluoroscopy: Artificial intelligence with standard c-arm and dynamic registration tracking to fuse preprocedural CT scans with intraprocedural fluoroscopy	No peer-reviewed journal publications to date. Several abstract reports (14-17)
Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (Lung Suite, syngo DynaCT and Toolbox)	Philips (Best, The Netherlands), Siemens Healthcare (Forchheim, Germany)	Overlays three-dimensional CBCT data on live fluoroscopy (augmented fluoroscopy) with automatic positional adaptation	Hohenforst-Schmidt et al. 2014 (53), Pritchett et al. 2018 (37), Ali et al. 2019 (51), Sobieszczyk et al. 2018 (54), Bowling et al. 2017 (55), and others
Ion™ endoluminal robotic system	Intuitive Surgical	Uses direct continuous visualization and fiber-optic, real-time shape-sensing technology	Fielding et al., 2019 (5)
Monarch™ Platform	Auris Surgical Robotics	Electromagnetic-based. Uses “fused navigation” of multiple data modalities (electromagnetic navigation, direct visualization, real-time optical pattern recognition, machine learning) to integrate the preprocedural CT into an intraprocedural interface	REACH study (56), Rojas-Solano et al. 2018 (4), two abstract reports (10,11)

*The SPiN Thoracic Navigation System™ also includes SPiN Perc™, a system of navigated transthoracic needle aspiration (27,57-59) which is outside the scope of this review article yet still subject to CT-to-body divergence.

The details are as followings:

• ❖ Table 2, 1st column, 8th row: “Lung Suite…”, needs to be corrected as “Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (Lung Suite, syngo DynaCT and Toolbox)”;

• ❖ Table 2, 2nd column, 8th row: “Philips, Best…”, should be changed to “Philips (Best, The Netherlands), Siemens Healthcare (Forchheim, Germany)”;

• ❖ Table 2, 4th column, 8th row: at the end of the list of references (“Hohenforst-Schmidt et al.,…”), “and others” needs to add.

The correct Table 2 is given below (Table 2).

The authors regret the error.