Correction to: Electrode array design determines scalar position, dislocation rate and angle and postoperative speech perception.

Correction to: European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology 10.1007/s00405-021-07160-2

In the original publication of the article, some values for the electrode arrays Flex24 and Flex28 (MED EL) have been interchanged in Tables 1 and 2 in the original manuscript. The authors apologize for that mistake. The correct Tables 1 and 2 are depicted below. The numbers used in the article itself were correct.

Table 1

Synopsis of study group (in total: n = 495)

Manufacturer (n)	Cochlear™: 327 MED-EL: 168
Electrode array (n)	Contour Advance (Cochlear™) (= CA): 143 CI 422/522/622 (Cochlear™) (= SSA): 162 CI 532/632 (Cochlear™) (= SMA): 22 Flex24 (MED-EL): 24 Flex28 (MED-EL): 129 FlexSoft (MED-EL): 15
Side (n)	Left: 259 Right: 236
Age	52.7 years (min: 18.0; max: 86.2)

Table 2

Cochlear measurements (distance A and B), angular insertion depth, scalar position in total (SD = standard deviation) and distribution of the insertion technique

	Mean	SD	Minimum	Maximum
Distance A (mm)	9.92	0.86	7.4	12.2
Distance B (mm)	6.74	0.49	5.4	8.1
Insertion angle (°)	418.8	103.7	199	794
Scalar position in total (n)	ST: 434 (87.7%) TD: 32 (6.5%) SV: 25 (5%) VD: 4 (0.8%)
Insertion technique in total (n) and percentage (%)	Electrode array	CS	RW	ERW
	CA (Cochlear™)	140/98%	3/2%	/
	SSA (Cochlear™)	47/29%	110/68%	5/3%
	SMA (Cochlear™)	12/54.5%	10/45.5%	/
	Flex24 (MED-EL)	4/16.6%	19/79.2%	1/4.2%
	Flex28 (MED-EL)	52/40.3%	72/55.8%	5/3.9%
	FlexSoft (MED-EL)	12/80%	3/20%	/

CS cochleostomy, RW round window, ERW extended round window