Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Correction to: Hernia (2024) 28:321–332 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-023-02881-1
In the abstract section beginning 'The robotic approach for incisional hernia repair was associated with a significant difference between the two groups in complications and recurrence rates, a longer operative time than laparoscopic repair, but with a shorter length of stay' in this article, the text 'with a significant difference
'should have read' no significant difference'.
In the Conclusion section beginning 'This meta-analysis suggests that during a range of follow-ups from 1 to 24 months, among patients undergoing minimally invasive incisional hernia repair, there is significant difference between robot-assisted and laparoscopic repair' in this article, the text 'there is significant difference
'should have read' no significant difference'.
The original article has been corrected.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Peñafiel, J.A.R., Valladares, G., Cyntia Lima Fonseca Rodrigues, A. et al. Correction to: Robotic‑assisted versus laparoscopic incisional hernia repair: a systematic review and meta‑analysis. Hernia (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-024-03071-3
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-024-03071-3