Paediatric Surgery (Ukraine). 2025. 4(89): 93-100. doi: 10.15574/PS.2025.4(89).93100
Maksymenko O. S.¹, Hryn V. H.¹, Savchenko R. B.¹, Muensterer O. ², Springer A.^3
1Poltava State Medical University, Ukraine
²Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Germany
³Medical University of Vienna, Austria

 For citation: Maksymenko OS, Hryn VH, Savchenko RB, Muensterer O, Springer A. (2025). Biocompatibility and mechanisms of aseptic inflammation in the use of suture materials in surgery. Paediatric Surgery (Ukraine). 4(89): 93-100. doi: 10.15574/PS.2025.4(89).93100.
Article received: Oct 23, 2025. Accepted for publication: Dec 12, 2025.

Any suture material intended for medical use must be characterized by a high level of biological compatibility. Biocompatibility is generally considered to be a material's ability to interact harmoniously with living tissue, its "affinity" with the body, which minimizes negative immune and inflammatory reactions.
Aim – to evaluate contemporary suture materials in terms of their physical and mechanical properties, biocompatibility, and effects on body tissues, as well as to determine the advantages of synthetic absorbable materials compared with traditional natural threads.
The analysis was conducted based on contemporary literature sources available in the PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science databases and experimental and clinical data concerning the use of suture materials in surgery. At the current stage of development of surgical practice, suture material must demonstrate a high level of biological activity, and, first of all, demonstrate the ability to resist infectious agents. The best thread should have the following basic properties: have the highest possible tensile strength, have knot stability in dry and wet conditions, have a relative elongation of the thread within 25±10% and a minimally high Young's modulus, be atraumatic, have an optimal thread surface texture, have balanced hydrophilicity, have non-pyrogenic properties, and cause a minimal tissue reaction of the local immune system during absorption.
Conclusion. Synthetic suture materials (both absorbable and non-absorbable) represent an optimal choice for contemporary surgery due to their high biocompatibility, predictable mechanical properties, controlled resorption, and minimal tissue reaction. Their use contributes to improved surgical outcomes and a reduced incidence of postoperative complications.
No conflict of interests was declared by the authors.
Keywords: aseptic inflammation, absorbable suture material, non-absorbable suture material.

REFERENCES

1. Ajmeri JR, Ajmeri MCJ. (2006). Surgical sutures: the largest textile implant material. In S.C. Anand, J.F. Kennedy, M. Miraftab, S. Rajendran (Reds.), Medical Textiles and Biomaterials for Healthcare. Woodhead Publishing: 432-440. https://doi.org/10.1533/9781845694104.7.432

2. Amani H, Alipour M, Shahriari E, Taboas JM. (2024). Immunomodulatory Biomaterials: Tailoring Surface Properties to Mitigate Foreign Body Reaction and Enhance Tissue Regeneration. Advanced Healthcare Materials. 13(29): 2401253. https://doi.org/10.1002/adhm.202401253; PMid:39370571

3. Balomenos DB, Gοuletsοu PG, Galatos AD. (2023). Comparison of Absorbable and Nonabsorbable Sutures for Intradermal Skin Closure in Dogs. Vet Sci. 10(2): 105. https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci10020105; PMid:36851409 PMCid:PMC9960444

4. Bespalova OM. (2021). Biomaterily ta biosumisnistʹ [Elektronnyy resurs] : navchalʹnyy posibnyk dlya zdobuvachiv stupenya bakalavra za osvitnʹoyu prohramoyu «Medychna inzheneriya» «Reheneratyvna ta biofarmatsevtychna inzheneriya» spetsialʹnistʹ 163 «Biomedychna inzheneriya». KPI im. Ihorya Sikorsʹkoho ; uklad. O. YA. Bespalova. Kyyiv: KPI im. Ihorya Sikorsʹkoho: 97.

5. Bilash S, Pronina O, Ksyonz I, Koptev M, Oliinichenko YO, Kononov B. (2024). Analysis of early morphological and functional perivulnar changes in the mucosa of the cecum after suturing with different surgical threads. Paediatric Surgery (Ukraine). 1(82): 43-49. https://doi.org/10.15574/PS.2024.82.43

6. Byrne M,Aly A. (2019). The Surgical Suture. Aesthet Surg J. 39; Suppl 2: S67-s72. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjz036; PMid:30869751

7. Chittoria RK, Reddy BP. (2023). Suture materials – Recent advances. Cosmoderma. 3: 175. https://doi.org/10.25259/CSDM_176_2023

8. Clark CG, Wyllie JH, Haggie SJ, Renton P. (1977). Comparison of catgut and polyglycolic acid sutures in colonic anastomoses. World Journal of Surgery. 1(4): 501-504. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01565923; PMid:910457

9. D'Cunha P, Pande B, Kathalagiri MS, Moharana AK, Deepak T, Pinto CS. (2022). Absorbable sutures: chronicles and applications. International Surgery Journal. 9(7): 1383-1394. https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20221733

10. Dapunt U, Prior B, Kretzer JP, Hänsch GM, Gaida MM. (2021). The effect of surgical suture material on osteoclast generation and implant-loosening. [Research Paper]. International Journal of Medical Sciences. 18(2): 295-303. https://doi.org/10.7150/ijms.50270; PMid:33390798 PMCid:PMC7757137

11. Dennis C, Sethu S, Nayak S, Mohan L, Morsi Y,Manivasagam G. (2016). Suture materials – Current and emerging trends. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A. 104(6): 1544-1559. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.35683; PMid:26860644

12. Elgohary DH, Saad MA, Salem MM, Sherazy EH, Khalifa TF. (2025). Assessment the properties of various surgical sutures. Scientific Reports. 15(1): 33330. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-20311-3; PMid:41023094 PMCid:PMC12480881

13. Faris A, Khalid L, Hashim M, Yaghi S, Magde T, Bouresly W et al. (2022). Characteristics of Suture Materials Used in Oral Surgery: Systematic Review. Int Dent J. 72(3): 278-287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.identj.2022.02.005; PMid:35305815 PMCid:PMC9275112

14. Gfroerer S, Baumann P, Schwalbach AK, Smirnoff A. (2019). Prospective international multicenter observational study of Novosyn® Quick for skin closures in adults and children (SKINNOQ). BMC Surg. 19(1): 47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-019-0506-8; PMid:31046730 PMCid:PMC6498545

15. Gonchar S, Pronina O. (2011). Structural, functional and morphological characteristics of changes in kidney tissues in early period after experimental nephrotomy and application of standard catgut and larginine modified catgut. Bulletin of Problems Biology and Medicine. 11(2): 15-19.

16. Gorovyi VI. (2018). Features of the use of modern suture material in operations on organs of the genitourinary system. Health of woman. 2(115): 39-45.

17. Greenberg JA, Clark RM. (2009). Advances in suture material for obstetric and gynecologic surgery. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2(3): 146-158.

18. Guarino N, Vallasciani SA,Marrocco G. (2009). A new suture material for hypospadias surgery: a comparative study. J Urol. 181(3): 1318-1322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.10.056; PMid:19157423

19. Gupta V. (2025). Potential of Natural Plant-Based Materials in the Development of Biocompatible Drug-Eluting Surgical Sutures: A Review. Biomedical Materials & Devices. 3(2): 1125-1149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44174-024-00259-0

20. Hryn V, Kostylenko Y, Maksymenko O. (2023). The greater omentum and similar serous formations of testis in male white rats. Folia Morphologica. 82(4): 854-861. https://doi.org/10.5603/FM.a2022.0095; PMid:36472401

21. Hryn V, Kostylenko Y, Maksymenko O. (2023). General Morphological Characteristics of the Results of Experimental Modeling of Aseptic Peritonitis. Annals of Anatomy – Anatomischer Anzeiger. 250: 152160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aanat.2023.152160; PMid:37739240

22. Hryn V, Kostylenko Y, Maksymenko O, Svintsytska N, Bilash V, Tykhonova O et al. (2024). Morphology of Catgut Implant Destruction in the Peritoneal Cavity of Male White Rats. Journal of Morphological Sciences. 41: 154-160. doi: 10.51929/jms.41.154.2024.

23. Hryn V, Maksymenko O. (2024). Morphological Characteristics of the Results of Experimental Modeling of Septic Peritonitis. International Journal of Morphology. 42(2): 446-451. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0717-95022024000200446

24. Jo Y-Y, Kweon H, Kim D-W, Kim M-K, Kim S-G, Kim J-Y et al. (2017). Accelerated biodegradation of silk sutures through matrix metalloproteinase activation by incorporating 4-hexylresorcinol. Scientific Reports. 7(1): 42441. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep42441; PMid:28205580 PMCid:PMC5304327

25. Khanuja K, Burd J, Ozcan P, Peleg D, Saccone G, Berghella V. (2022). Suture type for hysterotomy closure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 4(6): 100726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajogmf.2022.100726; PMid:35995367

26. Kim A, Downer MA, Berry CE, Valencia C, Fazilat AZ, Griffin M. (2023). Investigating Immunomodulatory Biomaterials for Preventing the Foreign Body Response. Bioengineering. 10(12): 1411. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering10121411; PMid:38136002 PMCid:PMC10741225

27. Kim H, Hwang K, Yun SM. (2020). Catgut and its Use in Plastic Surgery. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery. 31(3): 876-878. https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000006149; PMid:32195830

28. Kuzu T. (2022). Comparison tensile strength of different sutur materials. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal. 24: 355-360. https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj.978167

29. Li Y, Meng Q, Chen S, Ling P, Kuss MA, Duan B et al. (2023). Advances, challenges, and prospects for surgical suture materials. Acta Biomater. 168: 78-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2023.07.041; PMid:37516417

30. Lovric V, Goldberg MJ, Heuberer PR, Oliver RA, Stone D, Laky B et al. (2018). Suture wear particles cause a significant inflammatory response in a murine synovial airpouch model. J Orthop Surg Res. 13(1): 311. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-018-1026-4; PMid:30522505 PMCid:PMC6282382

31. Maftei G, Mârțu C, Popa C, Geleţu G, Danila V, Jelihovschi I et al. (2019). The Biomechanical Properties of Suture Materials and Their Relationship to Bacterial Adherence. Materiale Plastice. 56: 980-985. https://doi.org/10.37358/MP.19.4.5295

32. Mariani E, Lisignoli G, Borzì RM, Pulsatelli L. (2019). Biomaterials: Foreign Bodies or Tuners for the Immune Response? International journal of molecular sciences. 20(3): 636. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms20030636; PMid:30717232 PMCid:PMC6386828

33. Narasimhan AK, Rahul TS, Krishnan S. (2023). Chapter 9 – Revisiting the properties of suture materials: an overview. In S. Thomas, P. Coates, B. Whiteside, B. JosephK. Nair (Reds.), Advanced Technologies and Polymer Materials for Surgical Sutures. Woodhead Publishing: 199-235. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819750-9.00011-5; PMid:36717878 PMCid:PMC9885388

34. Pillai CKS, Sharma CP. (2010). Review Paper: Absorbable Polymeric Surgical Sutures: Chemistry, Production, Properties, Biodegradability, and Performance. Journal of Biomaterials Applications. 25(4): 291-366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885328210384890; PMid:20971780

35. Prem K, Janoria S, Kumar P. (2018). Secondary stone formation over a suture material after partial nephrectomy. BMJ Case Rep. 2018: bcr2017221569. https://doi.org/10.1136/bcr-2017-221569; PMid:29298785 PMCid:PMC5775761

36. Pronina OM, Bilash SM, Kobeniak MM, Oliinichenko YO, Koptev MM, Pirog-Zakaznikova AV et al. (2025). Comparative assessment of morphometric parameters of structural elements of crypts of the cecum using surgical threads polyglactin-910 and polycaprolactone modified with l arginine in the experiment. Azerbaijan Medical Journal. 183-189. https://doi.org/10.34921/amj.2025.1.032

37. Pronina OM, Bilash SM, Ksyonz IV, Kobeniak MM, Oliinichenko YO, Koptev MM et al. (2025). Morphometric features of the structural organisation of rabbit large intestine crypts after colotomy using polycaprolactone thread modified with L-arginine. Paediatric Surgery (Ukraine). 1(86): 33-39. https://doi.org/10.15574/PS.2025.1(86).3339

38. Quinn J, Panasenko SI, Leshchenko Y, Gumeniuk K, Onderková A, Stewart D et al. (2024). Prehospital Lessons From the War in Ukraine: Damage Control Resuscitation and Surgery Experiences From Point of Injury to Role 2. Mil Med. 189(1-2): 17-29. https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/usad253; PMid:37647607

39. Salem EA. (2018). Modified 16-Dot plication technique for correction of penile curvature: prevention of knot-related complications. Int J Impot Res. 30(3): 117-121. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-018-0018-6; PMid:29736012

40. Sarikaya K, Senocak C, Sadioglu FE, Ciftci M, Yordam M, Bozkurt OF et al. (2022). Is there any advantage in the use of absorbable sutures in congenital penile curvature surgery performed in childhood? Rev Int Androl. 20(3): 158-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.androl.2020.12.005; PMid:35624015

41. Selvi F, Cakarer S, Can T, Kirli Topcu S, Palancioglu A, Keskin B et al. (2016). Effects of different suture materials on tissue healing. J Istanb Univ Fac Dent. 50(1): 35-42. https://doi.org/10.17096/jiufd.79438; PMid:28955553 PMCid:PMC5573451

42. Skoruk R. (2013). Morphological and morphometričal analysis of reaction of liver tissues and skeletal muscle polìfìlamentnogo implantation of surgical suture material of silk. Tavria Medical and Biological Bulletin. 13(2): 178-182.

43. Snodgrass W, Yucel S. (2007). Tubularized incised plate for mid shaft and proximal hypospadias repair. J Urol. 177(2): 698-702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2006.09.104; PMid:17222659

44. Tagliaferri V, Ruggieri S, Taccaliti C, Gentile C, Didonna T, D'asta M et al. (2021). Comparison of absorbable and permanent sutures for laparoscopic sacrocervicopexy: A randomized controlled trial. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 100(2): 347-352. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13997; PMid:32970837

45. Tatalović V, Marinković M, Perić R, Belopavlović R. (2024). Absorbable vs. non-absorbable suture: which one gives better results? Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971-). 193(5): 2341-2348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-024-03710-9; PMid:38771464

46. Wahyudi I, Raharja PAR, Situmorang GR, Rodjani A. (2023). Associations between suturing techniques and suture materials with complications of tubularised incised plate urethroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Pediatric Surgery Open. 1: 100003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yjpso.2023.100003

47. Xu L, Liu Y, Zhou W, Yu D. (2022). Electrospun Medical Sutures for Wound Healing: A Review. Polymers (Basel). 14(9): 1637. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14091637; PMid:35566807 PMCid:PMC9105379

48. Yaltirik M, Dedeoglu K, Bilgic B, Koray M, Ersev H, Issever H et al. (2003). Comparison of four different suture materials in soft tissues of rats. Oral Dis. 9(6): 284-286. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1601-0825.2003.00954.x; PMid:14629327