J reconstr Microsurg
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1604271
Erratum
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Erratum to: Long-Term Follow-Up after Phrenic Nerve Reconstruction for Diaphragmatic Paralysis: A Review of 180 Patients

Matthew R. Kaufman
1  Center for Treatment of Paralysis and Reconstructive Nerve Surgery, Jersey Shore University Medical Center, Neptune, New Jersey
2  Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, David Geffen UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, California
,
Andrew I. Elkwood
1  Center for Treatment of Paralysis and Reconstructive Nerve Surgery, Jersey Shore University Medical Center, Neptune, New Jersey
,
David Brown
3  Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, JFK Medical Center, Edison, New Jersey
,
John Cece
1  Center for Treatment of Paralysis and Reconstructive Nerve Surgery, Jersey Shore University Medical Center, Neptune, New Jersey
,
Catarina Martins
1  Center for Treatment of Paralysis and Reconstructive Nerve Surgery, Jersey Shore University Medical Center, Neptune, New Jersey
,
Thomas Bauer
4  Division of Thoracic Surgery, Jersey Shore University Medical Center, Neptune, New Jersey
,
Jason Weissler
5  Department of Surgery, Robert Wood Johnson University Medical Center, New Brunswick, New Jersey
,
Kameron Rezzadeh
2  Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, David Geffen UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, California
,
Reza Jarrahy
2  Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, David Geffen UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, California
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
14 July 2017 (eFirst)

It has been brought to the Publisher's attention that figures were mislabeled in the above-mentioned article published in the Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery, Volume 33, Number 1, pages 63–69 (DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1588018). Also there were errors in two sentences on pages 64 and 66.

The correct figures and the corrected sentences appear as follows:

Zoom Image
Fig. 2 SF-36 physical functioning survey scores. A 26% improvement was noted following phrenic nerve reconstruction. SF-36, 36-Item Short Form Health Survey.
Zoom Image
Fig. 3 Average pre- and postoperative phrenic nerve conduction latencies. Reference value of 7 ± 1.4 ms is shown graphically.
Zoom Image
Fig. 4 Mean pre- and postoperative diaphragm motor amplitudes (mV).

On page 64: para 1, line 8

Although the long-term impact of diaphragmatic paralysis on the respiratory system has not been rigorously evaluated, it has been suggested that a chronic reduction in lower lung aeration not only compromises function, but also increases susceptibility to respiratory infections and the onset of obstructive pulmonary disorders.


#

On page 66: para 5, line 3

In 50% of patients, there was a reversal of paradoxical movement and an improved static position of the diaphragm following treatment, whereas optimal fluoroscopic diaphragmatic activity (symmetrical static and dynamic positioning of the treated side when compared with the contralateral unaffected hemidiaphragm) was observed in 36% of patients.


#