Erratum to: Eur J Med Res (2017) 22:14 DOI 10.1186/s40001-017-0254-0
Following the publication of the original article [1], the corresponding author stated that he would like to make the following changes:In the abstract, in the first sentence of “Methods” section, “20 patients were diagnosed as non-L5/S1 disc herniation and underwent conventional approach (group R)”, the word “non” is deleted, and thus non-L5/S1 was replaced by L5/S1. Hence the final sentence was “20 patients were diagnosed as L5/S1 disc herniation and underwent conventional approach (group R)”.In the abstract, in the last sentence of “Results” section, “The MacNab score of the last follow-up showed excellent rate (95%) and good rate (90%) in groups I and R, respectively”, we feel the language of this sentence is not accurate and that “The MacNab score of the last follow-up showed excellent and good rate of 94.7% (18/19) and 90% (18/20) in group I and group R, respectively” could be better.In “Materials and methods”, in the second sentence under “Subjects” section, “Twenty patients (12 males and 8 females) with non-L5/S1 disc herniation”, the word “non” is deleted, and thus non-L5/S1 was replaced by L5/S1. Hence the final sentence was “Twenty patients (12 males and 8 females) with L5/S1 disc herniation”.In “Materials and methods”, in the second paragraph of "Inclusion criteria" which is under "Diagnostic criteria" section, the first sentence, “Group R: (1) Single segment without non-L5–S1 segment disc herniation in high iliac crest”, the phrase “without non-L5/S1” has been changed into “with L5/S1”. Hence the final sentence was “Group R: (1) Single segment with L5–S1 segment disc herniation in high iliac crest”.In “Discussion”, in the last sentence of the first paragraph, “The success rate of recurrent patient was about 85%, and below 3% in early period”, we feel the language of this sentence is not accurate and that “The success rate of recurrent patient was about 85%, and recurrence rate in early was below 3%” could be better.