Corrigendum to “The Artificial Disc Nucleus and Other Strategies for Replacement of the Nucleus Pulposus: Past, Present and Future Designs for an Emerging Surgical Solution” [Engineered Regeneration 5(2024), 269-281, (S2666138124000240), (10.1016/j.engreg.2024.04.006)]

In the original published version of this article, the authors reference a case study describing a patient that experienced adverse outcomes from the implantation of the GelStix nucleus pulposus replacement device. While this product is relatively new, and there is limited published information regarding this device, the case study represents the only reported instance of an adverse outcome. The authors misinterpreted the source material and failed to recognize that the adverse outcome experienced by the patient may not have been due to the device itself, but instead a result of the operating surgeon implanting the device incorrectly. The authors felt that it was necessary to correct this minor oversight in order to avoid bringing unwarranted negative attention to a product with otherwise promising results. In order to fix this issue, the authors have made slight modifications to our article's text in 2 places. The first modification can be found in Section 4.1.3: GelStix. The original, unmodified text reads: “While this study was ongoing, a case report detailing severe radicular and low back pain in a patient previously implanted with GelStix. Upon surgical exploration, it was determined that her symptoms had resulted from significant compression of the S1 nerve root due to extrusion of the implant [93].” This segment of text should be replaced with the following modified text: “While this study was ongoing, a case report was published detailing severe radicular and low back pain in a patient previously implanted with GelStix. Upon surgical exploration, it was determined that her symptoms had resulted from significant compression of the S1 nerve root due to extrusion of the implant. Notably, the authors suggest that displacement of the implant can be attributed to improper placement of the device during the initial surgery [93].” The articles again briefly references this source in the 3^rd paragraph of Section 6. Device Comparisons and Discussion. The original, unmodified text reads: “Biomechanical evaluations have shown that the knitted titanium, Bionate ring, and AMNPS devices failed to restore ROM or disc height [58,62,64]. Similarly, extrusion of the Gelstix hydrogel has reportedly caused significant nerve root compression leading to poor outcomes [93]. Taken together, this data along with the previously mentioned clinical findings, suggests that preformed implants, mechanical or hydrogel-based, are ineffective for long-term disc repair. The exception to this trend is the Newcleus, which led to satisfactory results in all trial patients and no instances of extrusion, however, clinical data only exists for a very small sample size [56].” This segment of text should be replaced with the following modified text: “Biomechanical evaluations have shown that the knitted titanium, Bionate ring, and AMNPS devices failed to restore ROM or disc height [58,62,64]. Taken together, this data along with the previously mentioned clinical findings, suggests that preformed implants, mechanical or hydrogel-based, are ineffective for long-term disc repair. The two exceptions to this trend are GelStix, which only has one reported instance of displacement, likely due to improper initial device insertion, and the Newcleus, which led to satisfactory results in all trial patients and no instances of extrusion, however, clinical data only exists for a very small sample size [56, 93].” It is important to note, that these modifications do not alter any conclusions presented by the paper. The authors apologize for the errors.