title: Unilateral facet dislocations: Is surgery really the preferred option?
abstract: METHODS
  Systematic review.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To compare the safety and effectiveness of initial surgery versus nonoperative management of unilateral facet dislocations with or without fractures.
  
  
  BACKGROUND
  Unilateral facet injuries represent between 6%-10% of all cervical spine injuries and yet optimal treatment for these injuries has not been established. The surgeon is faced with the decision of whether to manage the injury operatively or nonoperatively. Providing evidence to support this decision is necessary and is the rationale behind this article.
  
  
  METHODS
  A systematic review of the English language literature was undertaken for articles published between 1970 and August 2009. Electronic databases and reference lists of key articles were searched to identify studies evaluating surgery and nonoperative management of unilateral facet dislocations. Bilateral facet dislocations, isolated facet fractures (without dislocation), and complete spinal cord injuries were excluded. Two independent reviewers assessed the level of evidence quality using the GRADE criteria and disagreements were resolved by consensus.
  
  
  RESULTS
  We identified six articles meeting our inclusion criteria. Treatment failure, neurological deterioration, and persistent pain occurred more frequently in patients treated nonoperatively versus patients treated with surgery. Surgical patients experienced infections and surgical related complications not experience by those managed nonoperatively. Patients treated surgically after failed nonoperative management also experienced better outcomes than those who continued to be managed nonoperatively.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  When faced with a patient requesting treatment recommendations for their acute unilateral facet dislocation, the surgeon can state that treatment failure, persistent pain, and neurological deterioration occur more frequently with nonoperative treatment based on the available literature. Ultimately it will be the preference of the patient that will decide between these two treatment approaches.
authors.affiliation: University of British Columbia, Blusson Spinal Cord Centre, Vancouver BC, Canada.
authors.forename: Marcel
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Dvorak
authors.forename: Alexander R
authors.initials: AR
authors.lastname: Vaccaro
authors.forename: Jeffrey
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Hermsmeyer
authors.forename: Daniel C
authors.initials: DC
authors.lastname: Norvell
references.citation: J Neurosurg Spine. 2007 Jul;7(1):1-12
references.pmid: 17633481
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1987 Jan-Feb;12(1):23-7
references.pmid: 3576351
references.citation: J Spinal Disord Tech. 2007 Feb;20(1):42-8
references.pmid: 17285051
references.citation: J Spinal Disord Tech. 2004 Feb;17(1):1-7
references.pmid: 14734968
references.citation: J Neurosurg. 1999 Jul;91(1 Suppl):19-24
references.pmid: 10419364
references.citation: J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1991 Nov;73(6):977-81
references.pmid: 1955448