Correction to: Review of Robotic Needle Guide Systems for Percutaneous Intervention

Correction to: Annals of Biomedical Engineering (2019) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10439-019-02319-9

Sentences under the sections “Needle Guide Systems Based on Imaging Modalities” and “Image Compatibility for Needle Guide Systems” contained incorrect data referred from other articles.

In the section “Needle Guide Systems Based on Imaging Modalities,” subsection “MRI Guided Needle Guide Systems,” under the heading “Prostate Intervention Systems,” first paragraph, sentence 37:

“The setup permits 2-DOF movement of the template, a 100 × 120 × 125 mm³ block with equally spaced holes, in craniocaudal and anterior–posterior directions.”

Should read:

“The setup permits 2-DOF movement of the template, a 100 × 120 × 25 mm³ block with equally spaced holes, in craniocaudal and anterior–posterior directions.”

In the section “Image Compatibility for Needle Guide Systems,” subsection “MRI Guided Needle Guide Systems,” under the heading “Prostate Intervention Systems,” first paragraph, sentence 5:

“In case of motorized needle guide,⁶⁴ SNR reduced by 40 to 60% when motors were turned on.”

Should read:

“In case of motorized needle guide,⁶⁴ SNR reduced by maximum of 44% when motors were turned on.”

In the section “Image Compatibility for Needle Guide Systems,” subsection “MRI Guided Needle Guide Systems,” under the heading “Prostate Intervention Systems,” first paragraph, sentence 7:

“The compatibility tests for pneumatic robot by Fischer et al.¹⁷ were reported by Song et al.⁶³ where 15% SNR reduction was observed.”

Should read:

“The compatibility tests for pneumatic robot by Fischer et al.¹⁷ were reported by Song et al.⁶³ where less than 15% SNR reduction was observed.”

In the section “Image Compatibility for Needle Guide Systems,” subsection “MRI Guided Needle Guide Systems,” under the heading “Prostate Intervention Systems,” first paragraph, sentence 11:

“SNR test for the system by Elhawary et al.¹⁴ reported maximum variation of less than 7.5%.”

Should read:

“SNR test for the system by Elhawary et al.¹⁴ reported maximum variation (degradation) of 1.1%.”