The kringle suture: maximizing tendon repair stability while limiting hardware utilization—description of the technique and preliminary results

  • N. Ivaldo
  • T. ManganoEmail author
  • G. Caione
  • M. Rossoni
Original Article



Arthroscopic repair currently represents the gold standard surgical treatment for rotator cuff tears, despite several aspects that are still matter of discussion between surgeons, and it is not clear yet what technique is better with respect to the others. Several evidences, however, support the assumption that the suture configuration is most important than the number of suture anchors used.

Materials and methods

In this work, we describe a new suture technique for arthroscopic supraspinatus tendon repair using a single double-loaded common suture anchor, and based on a continue and multi-passage suture configuration, with final gross resemblance to the nordic kringle pastries or to the kringle protein domain. Between June 2015 and July 2016, 44 patients (44 shoulders) were treated for supraspinatus tendon tear by means of the kringle suture. Of these, 36 patients have been evaluated from the clinical and radiographic site in the setting of this study, with a follow-up time ranging from 18 to 30 months.


During the follow-up period, no major complications were recorded. Two patients reported a transient postoperative stiffness, which completely resolved upon 6 months from surgery. All of the patients referred complete subjective satisfaction and return to their daylife activities without pain. No sign of radiographic subsidence of the suture anchors was found at the radiographic analysis.


The kringle suture technique is cost saving, easy to perform, versatile and provides excellent initial fixation strength as required for tendon to bone healing of the reinserted cuff.


Kringle suture Supraspinatus tendon repair Arthroscopic cuff repair 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest



  1. 1.
    Deprés-Tremblay G, Chevrier A, Snow M, Hurtig MB, Rodeo S, Buschmann MD (2016) Rotator cuff repair: a review of surgical techniques, animal models, and new technologies under development. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 25(12):2078–2085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mall NA, Tanaka MJ, Choi LS, Paletta GA Jr (2014) Factors affecting rotator cuff healing. J Bone Joint Surg Am 96(9):778–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gazielly DF, Gleyze P, Montagnon C (1994) Functional and anatomical results after rotator cuff repair. Clin Orthop Relat Res 304:43–53Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cummins CA, Murrell GA (2003) Mode of failure for rotator cuff repair with suture anchors identified at revision surgery. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 12:128–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gerber C, Schneeberger AG, Beck M, Schlegel U (1994) Mechanical strength of repairs of the rotator cuff. J Bone Joint Surg 76:371–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grasso A, Milano G, Salvatore M, Falcone G, Deriu L, Fabbriciani C (2009) Single-row versus double-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a prospective randomized clinical study. Arthroscopy 25(1):4–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nho SJ, Slabaugh MA, Seroyer ST, Grumet RC, Wilson JB, Verma NN, Romeo AA, Bach BR Jr (2009) Does the literature support double-row suture anchor fixation for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair? A systematic review comparing double-row and single-row suture anchor configuration. Arthroscopy 25(11):1319–1328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Saridakis P, Jones G (2010) Outcomes of single-row and double-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a systematic review. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92(3):732–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chen M, Xu W, Dong Q, Huang Q, Xie Z, Mao Y (2013) Outcomes of single-row versus double-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of current evidence. Arthroscopy 29(8):1437–1449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Burkhart SS, Esch JC, Jolson RC (1993) The rotator crescent and rotator cable: an anatomic description of the shoulder’s “suspension bridge.”. Arthroscopy 9:611–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kim DH, Elattrache NS, Tibone JE, Jun BJ, DeLaMora SN, Kvitne RS et al (2006) Biomechanical comparison of a single-row versus double-row suture anchor technique for rotator cuff repair. Am J Sports Med 34:407–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cole BJ, ElAttrache NS, Anbari A (2007) Arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs: an anatomic and biomechanical rationale for different suture-anchor repair configurations. Arthroscopy 23(6):662–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mall NA, Lee AS, Chahal J, Sherman SL, Romeo AA, Verma NN et al (2013) An evidenced-based examination of the epidemiology and outcomes of traumatic rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy 29(2):366–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Reardon DJ, Maffulli N (2007) Clinical evidence shows no difference between single- and double-row repair for rotator cuff tears. Arthroscopy 23(6):670–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gartsman GM, Drake G, Edwards TB, Elkousy HA, Hammerman SM, O’Connor DP, Press CM (2013) Ultrasound evaluation of arthroscopic full-thickness supraspinatus rotator cuff repair: single-row versus double-row suture bridge (transosseous equivalent) fixation. Results of a prospective, randomized study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 22(11):1480–1487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hein J, Reilly JM, Chae J, Maerz T, Anderson K (2015) Retear rates after arthroscopic single-row, double-row, and suture bridge rotator cuff repair at a minimum of 1 year of imaging follow-up: a systematic review. Arthroscopy 31(11):2274–2281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lorbach O, Kieb M, Raber F, Busch LC, Kohn D, Pape D (2012) Comparable biomechanical results for a modified single-row rotator cuff reconstruction using triple-loaded suture anchors versus a suture-bridging double-row repair. Arthroscopy 28(2):178–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jost PW, Khair MM, Chen DX, Wright TM, Kelly AM, Rodeo SA (2012) Suture number determines strength of rotator cuff repair. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 94(14):e100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fealy S, Rodeo SA, MacGillivray JD, Nixon AJ, Adler RS, Warren RF (2006) Biomechanical evaluation of the relation between number of suture anchors and strength of the bone-tendon interface in a goat rotator cuff model. Arthroscopy 22(6):595–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wieser K, Rahm S, Farshad M, Ek ET, Gerber C, Meyer DC (2013) Stitch positioning influences the suture hold in supraspinatus tendon repair. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21(7):1587–1592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ponce BA, Hosemann CD, Raghava P, Tate JP, Sheppard ED, Eberhardt AW (2013) A biomechanical analysis of controllable intraoperative variables affecting the strength of rotator cuff repairs at the suture-tendon interface. Am J Sports Med 41(10):2256–2261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wang VM, Wang FC, McNickle AG, Friel NA, Yanke AB, Chubinskaya S et al (2010) Medial versus lateral supraspinatus tendon properties: implications for double-row rotator cuff repair. Am J Sports Med 38(12):2456–2463CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Casa di Cura Villa IgeaAcqui TermeItaly

Personalised recommendations