Correction to: The “true” acetabular anteversion angle (AV angle): 2D CT versus 3D model

Correction to: International Journal of Computer Assisted Radiology and Surgery https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-022-02717-w

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. The wrong Table 2 was published and in Table 5, document measures in the column “Range” were mistakenly listed as dates.

The corrected Tables 2 and 5 is given in the following page.

Table 2 Comparison between AV^3D and AV^2D angle estimation methods, over all patients, in males and females, and in the right and left subgroups

Table 5 Different acetabular angles measured in previous studies

In the section “Single linear regression analysis of the angle ρ and the Δ^3D−2D”

Both equations should have a “minus” sign in the beginning (as in Figure 5c and 5d):

(Equation: Y = 0.09744∙X + 0.09012, p < 0.0001, R² = 0.0446, Fig. 5c). On the left, angle ρ showed a linear regression relationship with the difference of AV angles Δ^3D−2D (Equation: Y = 0.09403∙X + 0.06673, p < 0.0001, R² = 0.0315; Fig. 5d).

It should be:

(Equation: Y = − 0.09744∙X + 0.09012, p < 0.0001, R² = 0.0446, Fig. 5c). On the left, angle ρ showed a linear regression relationship with the difference of AV angles Δ^3D−2D (Equation: Y = − 0.09403∙X + 0.06673, p < 0.0001, R² = 0.0315; Fig. 5d).

In the section “Multiple linear regression analysis of the angles λ and ρ, and the Δ^3D−2D on the right" Rho-angle was mentioned double:

“which means that angle ρρ has a significant negative influence on Δ^3D−2D on the right (Fig. 5e)”

It should be:

“which means that angle ρ has a significant negative influence on Δ^3D−2D on the right (Fig. 5e)”.