Cylinder plaster versus cricket pad splint in uncomplicated patellar fractures

Date First Published:
October 6, 2009
Last Updated:
January 27, 2011
Report by:
Dr Janos Baombe, Senior Emergency Trainee (Manchester Royal Infirmary)
Search checked by:
Bernard A Foëx, Manchester Royal Infirmary
Three-Part Question:
In [adult patients with uncomplicated patellar fracture] is [a plaster cylinder compared to a cricket pad splint] better at [reducing symptoms/speeding up functional recovery]?
Clinical Scenario:
A 32 year old man presents to the Emergency Department having landed on his knee whilst playing football. His x-ray reveals a closed vertical fracture of his patella. You wonder if a cricket pad splint is as good as a plaster cylinder for immobilisation.
Search Strategy:
Medline using the Ovid interface (1950 – 2010)
Embase (1980 - 2009)
Cochrane (the whole database)<br><br>
Search Details:
Medline:{patella$.mp} AND {exp fractures, bone OR exp fractures, closed OR fracture healing OR fract$.mp exp } LIMIT to human, English language and therapy (sensitivity).

Embase:(Exp patella OR exp patella fracture) AND (exp splint OR plaster cast)

Cochrane: Search using the term “patella”


Outcome:
237 papers were found using the OVID interface, 20 with Embase, no yield within the Cochrane Library. None of the papers found were relevant to the original question.
Author Commentary:
This is a real life clinical scenario. In patients with uncomplicated fracture of the patella, minimal symptoms and no instability, one would have thought that a cricket pad splint would offer as much biomechanical stability as a plaster cylinder. Unfortunately, there do not seem to be any studies available to date to support this theory.
Bottom Line:
There is no published evidence. Local advice and guidelines should be followed.