COMPARISON TENSILE STRENGTH OF NATURAL AND SYNTHETIC ABSORBABLE SUTURES
Objective: The aim of the investigation is to evaluate and to compare the tensile strength of commercial natural and synthetic absorbable suture
materials currently used in surgery. The natural absorbable sutures of chromic catgut are prepared for this purpose as well as commercial synthetic
absorbable sutures made from polyglycolide.
Methods: The analysis has been carried out following the standard test method for tensile strength and Young’s modulus of fiber ASTM C1557-03.
Measuring the diameter of each suture has been carried out with an optical microscope to determine the accuracy of manufacturers’ data. Tensile
testing has been performed to evaluate the tensile strength of each type of sutures. The modulus elasticity and strain (ϵ) obtained are also presented.
Results: The results show that sutures made from braided synthetic material of polyglycolide (violet coated) present a tensile strength remarkably
superior (1070.292 MPa) to that of natural absorbable sutures of chromic catgut (392.276 MPa). Using optical macro microscope analysis,
monofilament sutures present less surface irregularities than multifilament polyglycolide sutures. Chromic catgut monofilament sutures present less
surface irregularities than multifilament polyglycolide.
Conclusion: Tensile test of absorbable sutures was conducted in this research. Two types of absorbable sutures were investigated and compared. It is
found that sutures made from braided synthetic material of polyglycolide (violet coated) having much better tensile strength comparing with sutures
made from natural material (chromic catgut monofilament).
of common suture materials in orthopaedic surgery. Iowa Orthop J
2. Shimamura N, Matchett G, Tsubokawa T, Ohkuma H, Zhang J.
Comparison of silicon-coated nylon suture to plain nylon suture in
the rat middle cerebral artery occlusion model. J Neurosci Methods
3. Vogels RR, Lambertz A, Schuster P, Jockenhoevel S, Bouvy ND,
Disselhorst-Klug C, et al. Biocompatibility and biomechanical analysis
of elastic TPU threads as new suture material. J Biomed Mater Res B
Appl Biomater 2017;105:99-106.
4. Metz SA, von Fraunhofer JA, Masterson BJ. Stress relaxation of
organic suture materials. Biomaterials 1990;11:197-9.
5. Kikuchi M, Nakamoto Y, Shinohara S, Fujiwara K, Tona Y, Yamazaki H,
et al. Suture granuloma showing false-positive finding on PET/CT after
head and neck cancer surgery. Auris Nasus Larynx 2012;39:94-7.
6. Nindhia TS, Nindhia TG, Surata IW, Knejzlik Z, Ruml T. Effect of
feeding with herb of Erythrina variegata to biocompatibility of the
cocoon fiber of wild silk moth Attacus atlas for future application as
biocompatible of silk sutures. Asian J Pharm Clin Res 2018;11:20-3.
7. Nindhia TG, Knejzlik Z, Ruml T, Surata IW, Nindhia TS. Indigenous
Indonesian wild silkworm cocoon of Attacus atlas as biocompatible
film biomaterial. Mater Sci Eng 2017;204:1-5.
8. Nindhia TG, Koyoshib Y, Kanekob A, Sawadab H, Ohtab M, Hiraib S,
et al. Hydroxyapatite-silk functionally graded material by pulse electric
current sintering. Trends Biomater Artif Organs 2008;22:28-33.
9. Pillai CK, Sharma CP. Review paper: Absorbable polymeric surgical
sutures: Chemistry, production, properties, biodegradability, and
performance. J Biomater Appl 2010;25:291-366.
10. Nobile L, Checchi L, Monaco.G. Experimental analysis of tensile
properties of some suturing materials. J Mater Sci Mater Med
11. Burns LR, Lee JA, Bradlow ET, Antonacci A. Surgeon evaluation of
suture and endo-mechanical products. J Surg Res 2007;141:220-33.
12. ASTM. Standard Test Method for Tensile Strength and Young’s
Modulus of Fibers. United State; ASTM Internatinal; 2003.
13. Marturello DM, McFadden MS, Bennett RA, Ragetly GR, Horn G. Knot
security and tensile strength of suture materials. Vet Surg 2014;43:73-9.
14. Salgado MA, Lewbart GA, Christian LS, Griffith EH, Law JM.
Evaluation of five different suture materials in the skin of the earthworm
(Lumbricus terrestris). Springerplus 2014;3:423.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.