4.4 Review

Treatment of isolated cervical facet fractures: a systematic review

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROSURGERY-SPINE
Volume 24, Issue 2, Pages 347-354

Publisher

AMER ASSOC NEUROLOGICAL SURGEONS
DOI: 10.3171/2015.6.SPINE141260

Keywords

systematic reviews; unilateral facet fracture; bilateral facet fracture; surgical reduction; closed reduction; cervical; trauma

Funding

  1. Medtronic
  2. Springer
  3. AOSpine
  4. CSRS
  5. OREF
  6. NACTN
  7. NIH
  8. Department of Defense
  9. AO
  10. NREF
  11. UVa
  12. Asubio Pharmaceuticals
  13. Canadian Institute of Health Research
  14. Rick Hansen Foundation
  15. Saskatchewan Health Research Foundation
  16. Royal University Hospital
  17. Globus Medical
  18. K2M
  19. Synthes
  20. Globus

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE In this clinically based systematic review of cervical facet fractures, the authors' aim was to determine the optimal clinical care for patients with isolated fractures of the cervical facets through a systematic review. METHODS A systematic review of nonoperative and operative treatment methods of cervical facet fractures was performed. Reduction and stabilization treatments were compared, and analysis of postoperative outcomes was performed. MEDLINE and Scopus databases were used. This work was supported through support received from the Association for Collaborative Spine Research and AOSpine North America. RESULTS Eleven studies with 368 patients met the inclusion criteria. Forty-six patients had bilateral isolated cervical facet fractures and 322 had unilateral isolated cervical facet fractures. Closed reduction was successful in 56.4% (39 patients) and 63.8% (94 patients) of patients using a halo vest and Gardner-Wells tongs, respectively. Comparatively, open reduction was successful in 94.9% of patients (successful reduction of open to closed reduction OR 12.8 [95% CI 6.1-26.9], p < 0.0001); 183 patients underwent internal fixation, with an 87.2% success rate in maintaining anatomical alignment. When comparing the success of patients who underwent anterior versus posterior procedures, anterior approaches showed a 90.5% rate of maintenance of reduction, compared with a 75.6% rate for the posterior approach (anterior vs posterior OR 3.1 [95% CI 1.0-9.4], p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS In comparison with nonoperative treatments, operative treatments provided a more successful outcome in terms of failure of treatment to maintain reduction for patients with cervical facet fractures. Operative treatment appears to provide superior results to the nonoperative treatments assessed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available