Systematic review of spica casting for the treatment of paediatric diaphyseal femur fractures

PURPOSE: Paediatric femur fractures are commonly encountered and often successfully managed with spica casting. Despite spica casting’s long history there is little formal guidance for optimal outcomes and no consolidation of existing literature. The purpose of this study is to review the available literature regarding the use of spica casting for the management of paediatric diaphyseal femur fractures. METHODS: The PubMed database was queried for all research articles including the phrase “spica”. A total of 788 abstracts were reviewed for relevance to the current study. Data was extracted from all available research studies which specified tolerance for fracture angulation or shortening in the cast. Additionally, all articles describing alternative materials, methods for spica application, and complications of spica casting were reviewed. RESULTS: In all, 106 articles were found relevant to the management of diaphyseal femur fractures in the paediatric population. The aggregated, accepted fracture shortening decreased from 16 mm to 18 mm before age ten years to 12 mm to 14 mm after puberty. Aggregated, accepted angulation decreased from 14° to 16° varus/valgus and 18° to 22° pro/recurvatum before age two years, to 6° to 8° and 10° to 12° by puberty, respectively. The overall reported complication rate was 19.6%, with the most common complication being skin compromise in 8.2% of patients, followed by unacceptable angulation at the fracture site in 4.2% of patients and excessive limb shortening in 1.9% of patients. CONCLUSION: This article reviews the available spica casting literature and compiles the available data. Spica casting offers a safe, effective means for definitive management of paediatric diaphyseal femur fractures. Future research identifying the rate and pattern of remodelling as it relates to angulation and shortening at various patient ages, particularly beyond the aforementioned norms, would be valuable to identify true biological tolerances versus accepted expert opinion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE LEVEL II: Review of level II evidence