Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dynamic cervical plate versus static cervical plate in the anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review

  • General Review
  • Published:
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Study design and objective

This study performs a systematic review to compare the functional outcomes and complications between the dynamic cervical plate and static cervical plate in patients with the anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).

Summary and background data

The common static cervical plates have been widely used in the ACDF. It can successfully increase the fusion rate and decrease the surgery failure. Recently, the dynamic plate has been identified as another safe and efficient option for the better fusion rate by promoting load sharing across the construct. However, the proposed benefits have been largely theoretical, and there is considerable controversy as to which plate is a better option for reconstruction after ACDF.

Methods

We searched the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed, and CBM to identify the clinical studies regarding the comparison of dynamic cervical plate with fixed cervical plate in the ACDF. Reports not available in English were excluded. The quality of the included studies was critically assessed, and the data analysis was performed by the Cochrane Collaboration’s RevMan 4.2. We defined statistical significance as a P value <0.05.

Results

Five studies were included in this systematic review. In the final analysis, there were 172 patients in the dynamic cervical plate and 143 in the static cervical group. Four studies compared the clinical and radiographic outcomes between the two plate groups in the one-level or two-level fusion segmentation patients, while one studied the patients with the multiple levels. The similar clinical outcomes between the two cervical plate systems were reported in two studies. However, another study suggested that a better clinical outcome was found in the dynamic plate group for the multiple-level fusion patients, although the similar clinical outcome was found in the one-level fusion patients. The two RCT studies with the same clinical data reported that four patients in the static group developed hardware complications, while there was no implant complication in the dynamic group.

Conclusion

The clinical outcome was similar in ACDF for one-level fusion patients, although the hardware failure rate was higher in ACDF with static plates.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bailey RW, Badgley CE (1960) Stabilization of the cervical spine by anterior fusion. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 42:565–594

    Google Scholar 

  2. Smith GW, Robinson RA (1958) The treatment of cervical spine disorders by anterior removal of the intervertebral disc and interbody fusion. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 40:607–624

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cloward RB (1958) The anterior approach for removal of ruptured disks. J Neurosurg 15:602–617

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bohler J, Gaudernak T (1980) Anterior plate stabilization for fracture-dislocations of the lower cervical spine. J Trauma 20:203–205

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Caspar W, Barbier D, Klara PM (1989) Anterior cervical fusion and Caspar plate stabilization for cervical trauma. Neurosurgery 25:491–502

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Geisler FH, Caspar W, Pitzen T et al (1998) Reoperation in patients after anterior cervical plate stabilization in degenerative disease. Spine 23:911–920

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Caspar W, Gerisler FH, Pitzon T et al (1989) Anterior cervical plate stabilization in one- and two-level degenerative disease: overtreatment or benefit? J Spin Disord 11:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hofmeister M, Buhren V (1999) Therapiekonzept fur Verletzungen der unteren Halswirebelsaule. Orthopade 5:401–413

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ulrich C, Arand M, Nothwang J (2001) Internal fixation on the lower cervical spine-biomechanical and clinical practice of procedures and implants. Eur Spine J 10:88–100

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Reidy D, Finkelstein J, Nagpurkar A et al (2004) Cervical spine loading characteristics in a cadaveric C5 corpectomy model using a static and dynamic plate. J Spinal Disord 17:117–122

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Brodke DS, Gollogly S, Alexander Mohr R et al (2001) Dynamic cervical plates: biomechanical evaluation of load sharing and stiffness. Spine 26:1324–1329

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Rapoff AJ, Conrad BP, Johnson WM et al (2003) Load sharing in Premier and Zephir anterior cervical plates. Spine 28:2648–2650

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ghogawala Z, Counmans JV, Benzel EC et al (2007) Ventral verse dorsal decompression for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: surgeons’ assessment of eligibility for randomization in a proposed randomized controlled trial: results of a survey of the Cervical Spine Research Society. Spine 32:429–436

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Pitzen TR, Chrobok J, Stulik J et al (2009) Implant complications, fusion, loss of lordosis, and outcome after anterior cervical plating with dynamic or rigid plates: two-year results of a multi-centric, randomized, controlled study. Spine 34:641–646

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Stulik J, Pitzen TR, Chrobok J et al (2007) Fusion and failure following anterior cervical plating with dynamic or rigid plates: 6-months results of a multi-centric, prospective, randomized, controlled study. Eur Spine J 16:1689–1694

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nunley PD, Jawahar A, Kerr EJ III et al (2009) Choice of plate may affect outcomes for single versus multilevel ACDF: results of a prospective randomized single-blind trial. Spine J 9:121–127

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Goldberg G, Albert TJ, Vaccaro AR et al (2007) Short-term comparison of cervical fusion with static and dynamic plating using computerized motion analysis. Spine 32:E371–E375

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. DuBois CM, Bolt PM, Todd AG et al (2007) Static versus dynamic plating for multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Spine J 7:188–193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Brodke DS, Gollogly S, Alexander Mohr R (2001) Dynamic cervical plates: biomechanical evaluation of load sharing and stiffness. Spine 26:1324–1329

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Reidy D, Finkelstein J, Nagpurkar A et al (2004) Cervical spine loading characteristics in a cadaveric C5 corpectomy model using a static and dynamic plate. J Spinal Disord Tech 17:117–122

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Dvorak MF, Pitzen T, Zhu Q et al (2005) Anterior cervical plate fixation: a biomechanical study to evaluate the effects of plate design, endplate preparation, and bone mineral density. Spine 30:294–301

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Fogel GR, Li Z, Liu W et al (2010) In vitro evaluation of stiffness and load sharing in a two-level corpectomy: comparison of static and dynamic cervical plates. Spine J 10:417–421

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ghahreman A, Rao PJ, Ferch RD (2009) Dynamic plates in anterior cervical fusion surgery: graft settling and cervical alignment. Spine 34:1567–1571

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lee JY, Park MS, Moon SH et al (2013) Loss of lordosis and clinical outcomes after anterior cervical fusion with dynamic rotational plates. Yonsei Med J 54:726–731

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics, The first people’s Hospital affiliated to Huzhou Teacher’s College, Huzhou, 313000, China

    Haidong Li, Jikang Min, Qianghua Zhang, Yongjian Yuan & Dan Wang

Authors
  1. Haidong Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jikang Min
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Qianghua Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yongjian Yuan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Dan Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dan Wang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Li, H., Min, J., Zhang, Q. et al. Dynamic cervical plate versus static cervical plate in the anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 23 (Suppl 1), 41–46 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-013-1244-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-013-1244-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation