In Table 2 of the above-cited article, the difference (95% CI) after intervention for VAT (kg) was inadvertently reported as 1.40 (−2.17 to 4.98). The correct value is 0.140 (−0.217 to 0.498).

In the Supplementary Fig. 1 (study recruitment), it was reported that 230 patients were assessed for eligibility; the correct number of patients was 222. With regard to reasons for lost to follow-up, in the RYGB and RYGB+ET groups, respectively, it was reported that 8 and 8 patients did not undergo surgery and that 2 and 1 patients withdrew after surgery for personal reasons, when in fact 3 and 4 patients did not undergo surgery and 7 and 5 withdrew after surgery for personal reasons. These changes to the flow of participants do not affect analysis, as the number of patients randomized, lost to follow-up, evaluated, and analyzed (by ITT) was accurate.

The authors apologize for the errors.

The online version of the article ( and its supplementary material have been updated to correct the errors.

Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered. More information is available at