LAUSR

We wish to make an amendment to our recently published paper in order to clarify (and justify) the use of mesh in the clinical situation described. The discussion section on page 545 reads ‘two patients had intraperitoneal BioA (GORE BIO-A, W.L. Gore & Associates, Newark, DE, USA) placement due to the lack of availability of retrorectus or preperitoneal plane – both of which were class IV wounds’. In both of these patients, the presence of a pre-existing permanent colostomy prevented dissection of the retrorectus or preperitoneal plane on the affected side of the ventral hernia; hence, the BioA product was placed as an intra-peritoneal tissue reinforcement. Note that these were true ventral incisional hernias and not parastomal hernias. The wounds were designated CDC (Centers for Disease Control) class IV (dirty) with respect to (or as defined by) the CDC guidelines due to the incidental presence of the colostomy; however, the specific intra-peritoneal field where the mesh was placed was not visibly contaminated or infected at the time of the procedure. Clarification of this point confirms our intended ‘on-label’ use of the mesh product in this circumstance. This amendment aims to eliminate any confusion regarding the use of biosynthetic absorbable mesh as described in our study.