Great question and you will get plenty of different answers on this, as it really is surgeon dependent. I personally prefer Interrupted absorbable sutures in my patients that don’t require more than 4cm of diastasis repair of the muscle. In general surgery literature there is support for the use of absorbable sutures as their tensile strength is still strong enough leading up to the 6week mark when the fascia scar tissue should be ample enough to hold itself together. The benefit of absorbable sutures is most significant in patients that develop an infection or wound complications. The presence of nonabsorbable sutures may require the removal of all or most of those sutures to eliminate infection or debride a wound. On the other hand, if I have a patient who is overweight, has a very large diastasis , or has intrabdominal fat. They’re going to be pushing against that repair much more than the other type of patient. In these patients I prefer a nonabsorbable suture because of the increased level of tension I’m expecting. I still do interrupted sutures not continuous, just as I would above. The reason is if one suture breaks you still have sutures above and below holding the tension. With a continuous suture if it breaks the whole repair can loosen. The nonabsorbable means that it’s tensile strength is present for a much longer time. Some surgeons used barbed sutures , some use a mix of running and interrupted, some use a mix of absorbable and nonabsorbable . Usually these choices have to do with what they’ve had the most success and least amount if problems with. Hope that helps.