Corrigendum to “Hernia Mesh and Hernia Repair: A Review” [Engineered Regeneration, 1 (2020) 19-33] (Engineered Regeneration (2020) 1(19-33) (S2666138120300025), (10.1016/j.engreg.2020.05.002))

The authors regret that interpretation of the work of Holmdahl et al.¹ was misinterpreted in section “5.2 Biological Meshes for Abdominal Repair”. The correct interpretation is that there is no statistical difference in hernia recurrence rate for both groups in the study. The corrected work does not change the conclusion that biological meshes perform the same or worst then synthetic meshes. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused. The corrected text is as follows: Biological scaffolds, developed after synthetic meshes, are extracellular matrix (ECM)-based scaffolds derived from allogenic or xenogenic origins. Allogenic origin grafts can be autografts or allografts. Table 7 is a list of biological meshes on the market. This usually consist of human porcine, and fetal bovine dermis that is decellularized. Decellularization leaves the complex collagen structure of the dermis. Porcine small intestine submucosa and bovine pericardium is also commonly used. Costa et al. extensively describes the composition of biological meshes in their review². The mesh is designed for the host tissue to recolonize with cells and promote tissue growth, leading up to reabsorbtion³. In general, compared to synthetic meshes, biological meshes are more biocompatible and trigger less inflammatory response from the body, but they are associated with more hernia recurrences because of their lower mechanical strength compared to synthetic meshes⁴. However, in a recent clinical study comparing a skin graft mesh and a PP mesh, there is no statistical difference in hernia recurrence rate for both groups¹, showing no advantage of using a biological mesh over a synthetic mesh or vice versa. The production costs of these meshes are very high, therefore, it is unfeasible for mass production, slowing its application in hernia repair. Additionally, the clinical performance of biological meshes do not justify its high production costs⁵.