One of the back specialists, surgical fellow, at a major hospital told me that he doesn't advocate operating on relatively intact people, as opposed to mangled in a crash and missing pieces, without first getting the swelling down and getting them through a course of physical therapy to see how they function when they aren't traumatized. He claimed that it was just too easy to end up operating on people who could have had a better outcome if less extreme treatments were undertaken first.

He said that it used to be if they saw a displaced disk or other flaws they immediately dove in with the hammer and knives. Only recently have they found that most otherwise normal people have misalignment, bulged discs, and all sorts of apparently serious flaws, and most show no serious symptoms.

The study of outcomes comparing physical therapy versus surgery has shown that most people save money, experience less pain, regain mobility and function faster, and are exposed to far less risk if treated with supportive care and physical therapy. If and when it is shown that the conservative course hasn't worked, it may take six months, then surgery may be the way to go. On the other hand if you get into surgery too soon they typically can't undo the surgery after the fact.

The advice I was given was that moving as well as I could, even if I was in pain, but without overdoing it, was the fastest way to heal.