PNV v ARX, page-62

Despite this expense, our findings align with those of prior systematic reviews, whichhave failed to identify a clinical benefit to the use of biologic mesh over synthetic mesh in contaminated cases.3,4,29-31 Our findings of a nearly 200-fold increase in price of biologic mesh have been previously described and borne out in a burgeon- ing body of surgical literature.4,32-36 When viewed in the con- text of the value in health care equation, defined as health outcomes achieved per dollar spent,37,38 our findings of com- parable safety, significant increase in efficacy (numerator), and vastly decreased cost (denominator) associated with syn- thetic mesh are overwhelmingly in favor of synthetic mesh. This is a particularly salient finding given the likely over- stated notion that synthetic mesh is contraindicated in con- taminated fields, and the likely equally overstated notion that biologic mesh is the preferred device in contaminated fields.

The above was the summary of the second study that you said was pro-biologic.
Seems you found a pro-synthetic study instead
All quite moot anyway. As of 01/06/2023 Polynovo isn’t in the hernia mesh business but IS channeling a small part of its R&D expenditure in that direction so all we can do right now is watch this space.
Certainly not worth any more negative discussion right now.