Cirillo Totera, Juan IgnacioHernández Vargas, GabrielFarías Martini, IgnacioGimbernat Romero, MarcosUrzúa Bacciarini, AlejandroBallesteros Plaza, José Vicente2025-03-172025-03-172023Asian Spine Journal. Volume 17, Issue 1, Pages 30 - 36. 2023https://repositorio.unab.cl/handle/ria/63799Indexación: ScopusStudy Design: Case-control study. Purpose: Analyze association between imaging factors related to the failure of conservative treatment in isolated subaxial cervical facet fractures. Overview of Literature: Facet fracture (F1, F2, and F3 AOSpine) may be stable or unstable depending on clinical and imaging variables, which are not well established. As a result, differences in fracture management lead to differences in surgical or conservative indications, and there is no evidence to predict conservative treatment failure. Methods: Patients were categorized into two groups: six patients (16.2%) with conservative treatment failure (defined as the appearance of neurological symptoms, listhesis >3.5 mm, kyphotic deformation >11°, and/or non-union), and 31 patients (83.7%) with successful conservative management (defined as complete consolidation confirmed by computed tomography [CT] at the 6-month followup). All participants were fitted with rigid collars of the Miami type, and standardized follow-up was performed until consolidation or failure. CT and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was used to examine imaging characteristics. Sagittal balance parameters were assessed using CT, and signs of acute disc injury, prevertebral edema, facet synovitis, and interspinous hyperintense signal were assessed using MRI. Results: Thirty-seven patients were diagnosed with unilateral cervical facet fractures between 2009 and 2020. In this sample, acute disc injury had a significative association to failure of conservative treatment in F2 and F3 AOSpine facet fractures, 100% of the failure group presented with traumatic disc injury compared to 9.7% of the successful group, for the other variables: prevertebral edema, 83.7% vs. 41.9%; facet synovitis, 100% vs. 77.4%; and interspinous hyperintensity, 71.4% vs. 38.7%, respectively. With conservative management, all F1 fractures healed successfully. Conservative treatment failed in 20% of F2 fractures and 50% of F3 fractures, respectively. In terms of cervical sagittal balance parameters, there were no significant differences between groups. Conclusions: Conservative management was successful in all F1 fractures. In F2 and F3 types, there was a significant association between acute disc injury and conservative treatment failure. © 2023 by Korean Society of Spine Surgery This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.enCervical SpineIntervertebral DiscMagnetic Resonance Imaging ScanSpinal FractureTreatment FailuresArtículoAttribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Deed (CC BY-NC 4.0)10.31616/asj.2021.0437