Clinical Outcomes of 90 Isolated Unilateral Facet Fractures, Subluxations, and Dislocations Treated Surgically and Nonoperatively
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective outcomes study. OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study were 1) to identify plausible patient and interventional variables that influence the outcome of unilateral facet injuries and 2) to determine if patients return to normal general health status after unilateral facet injuries. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The management of unilateral subaxial cervical facet fractures and dislocations lacks agreement on treatment options and the variables that influence outcome. METHODS: Injury data, radiographs, and outcomes (North American Spine Society Cervical Follow-up Questionnaire and Short Form-36) were collected from 9 centers and 13 surgeons, members of the Spine Trauma Study Group. RESULTS: Causally motor vehicle accidents (49%) and sports (31%) predominated. The C6-C7 level accounted for 60% of injuries and C5-C6 represented 17%. The mean SF-36 PCS score of the operative patients with follow-up >18 months was 6.70 points higher than the mean of the nonoperative patients (P = 0.017). The SF-36 Bodily Pain mean of all patients was 67.2 (SD = 27.6), significantly lower (more pain) than the normative mean of 75.2 (SD = 23.7) (P = 0.014). Nonoperative patients also reported a mean Bodily Pain score of 63.0 (SD = 30.5) that was significantly worse than normative values (P = 0.031). Similarly, the NASS PD mean score for all patients was 84.8 (SD = 17.9), significantly lower than the normative mean of 89.1 (SD = 15.5) (P = 0.014). CONCLUSION: To our knowledge this is the largest reported series of facet injuries to date and the only one using health-related quality of life instruments. Unilateral facet injuries of the subaxial cervical spine led to reported levels of pain and disability that are significantly worse than those of the healthy population. Although further study is required, we suggest that nonoperatively treated patients report worse outcomes than operatively treated patients, particularly at longer follow-up despite having a more benign fracture pattern. The presence of comorbidities, associated injuries, and advanced age adversely impact clinical outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".