Erratum to: Clinical trial and in-vitro study comparing the efficacy of treating bony lesions with allografts versus synthetic or highly-processed xenogeneic bone grafts
© Kubosch et al. 2016
Published: 9 March 2016
The original article was published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2016 17:77
After publication of the original article , the authors noticed an error in the ‘Methods’ section. Within the ‘Patients’ sub-section, the first item in the list of synthetic or highly processed xenogeneic bone substitutes (SBS) should have been given as Orthoss®, rather than BioOss®. The sentence should therefore have read as follows:
“The following SBS were used: Orthoss® (Geistlich, Wolhusen, Switzerland) in 41.4 %, and at clearly lower percentages, respectively: Norian SRS® (Synthes) (8.6 %), Chronos® (Synthes) (1.7 %), Atlantik® (Argomedical) (2.6 %), Alaska® (Argomedical) (0.9 %), Endobone® (Biomet) (4.3 %), Pyrost® (Stryker) (0.9 %), Nanostim® (Medtronic) (37.1 %), Actifuse® (Baxter) (0.9 %), Tutobone® (Novomedics) (0.9 %) and PerOssal® (Botiss) (0.9 %).”
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
- Kubosch EJ, Bernstein A, Wolf L, Fretwurst T, Nelson K, Schmal H. Clinical trial and in-vitro study comparing the efficacy of treating bony lesions with allografts versus synthetic or highlyprocessed xenogeneic bone grafts. BMC Musc Disord. 2016;17:77.Google Scholar