Direct comparison
Absorbable vs Non-Absorbable Sutures
Suture selection: absorption timelines, tensile-strength retention, and when skin closure requires a removable, non-absorbable material.
Written and maintained by CASRAI Editorial Board
Last updated
Ask CASRAI · included with Regulatory Radar
Ask about Absorbable vs Non-Absorbable Sutures
Ask CASRAI answers research-administration questions and cites the passages behind every claim — and says so when the corpus does not cover something, instead of guessing. It comes with a Regulatory Radar subscription at $29 a month, alongside the daily digest of regulatory changes and the dashboard of what changed.
150 questions a day, on this site, over the API, or inside your own tools through the CASRAI MCP server.
Everything CASRAI publishes — this page, the dictionary, the guides and the news — stays free to read, with no account and no card.
How do Absorbable Sutures, Non-Absorbable Sutures compare side by side?
The table below compares Absorbable Sutures, Non-Absorbable Sutures across 10 procurement-relevant dimensions, from breakdown mechanism through cosmetic consideration.
Side-by-side comparison
| Dimension | Absorbable Sutures | Non-Absorbable Sutures |
|---|---|---|
| Breakdown mechanism | Hydrolysis (synthetic: Vicryl, Monocryl, PDS) or enzymatic proteolysis (natural: plain/chromic gut) | Resists hydrolytic and enzymatic breakdown; not metabolized in vivo |
| Removal required | No — degrades and is resorbed in place | Usually yes, on a schedule (skin closures); some placements are left permanently (deep, non-retrievable) |
| Typical absorption/wear timeline | Roughly 2–3 weeks (fast synthetics, plain gut) up to several months (PDS); material-specific, not uniform | Indefinite in vivo; if removed, typically 5–14 days post-placement depending on wound location and healing |
| Tensile-strength retention | Declines on a known curve — e.g. roughly half of initial strength retained at ~2 weeks for polyglactin 910, longer for PDS | Essentially constant over time; strength loss is not the limiting factor |
| Common materials | Polyglactin 910 (Vicryl), poliglecaprone 25 (Monocryl), polydioxanone (PDS), plain/chromic gut | Nylon, polypropylene (Prolene), silk, polyester, stainless steel |
| Typical use | Subcutaneous/dermal layers, GI and other internal anastomoses, pediatric repairs, mucosa | Visible skin closure, drain fixation, tendon/vascular repair, fascia under sustained load |
| When it is required (not just preferred) | Any closure that cannot be practically accessed for removal (deep internal layers, most mucosal and pediatric work) | Any closure where the surgeon needs to inspect and remove the material, or where strength must persist beyond an absorbable material's degradation window |
| Filament structure options | Braided (Vicryl) and monofilament (Monocryl, PDS) forms available | Braided (silk) and monofilament (nylon, Prolene) forms available |
| Infection/handling trade-off | Braided forms handle and knot well but carry higher wicking risk through braid interstices than monofilament | Same braided-vs-monofilament trade-off applies independently of absorbability |
| Cosmetic consideration | No removal visit, but some materials can cause more local tissue reaction during breakdown | Requires a removal visit for skin closures; timely removal reduces track-mark scarring risk |
Common questions
Common questions about Absorbable Sutures vs Non-Absorbable Sutures
Can absorbable sutures be used for skin closure?
+
Yes, for select cases — fast-absorbing gut or Monocryl is common in pediatric and some cosmetic skin closures specifically to avoid a removal visit. The trade-off is less predictable long-term strength retention than a removed non-absorbable suture, so it depends on wound tension and patient factors, not just location.
Why not just use non-absorbable sutures everywhere and remove them all?
+
Because removal isn't always possible or safe. Deep internal layers, most mucosal closures, and many pediatric procedures place the suture somewhere it can't be practically retrieved — leaving a permanent, non-absorbable material there creates a long-term foreign-body and infection-nidus risk with no offsetting benefit.
Does a higher initial tensile strength mean a suture is "better"?
+
Not on its own. What matters is whether strength is retained long enough to match the tissue's healing timeline. A suture that's strong today but has largely degraded before the tissue can hold itself together is the wrong choice regardless of its initial rating.
What is USP suture sizing, and does it relate to absorbable vs non-absorbable?
+
USP size (e.g., 4-0, 2-0, 0) describes diameter/strength independent of absorbability — both classes are manufactured across the same size range. Size is chosen for the tissue's load-bearing needs; absorbable vs non-absorbable is chosen for the healing-timeline and removal question separately.
Going deeper
