Skip to main content
Log in

Fusion and failure following anterior cervical plating with dynamic or rigid plates: 6-months results of a multi-centric, prospective, randomized, controlled study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Anterior cervical plate fixation is an approved surgical technique for cervical spine stabilization in the presence of anterior cervical instability. Rigid plate design with screws rigidly locked to the plate is widely used and is thought to provide a better fixation for the treated spinal segment than a dynamic design in which the screws may slide when the graft is settling. Recent biomechanical studies showed that dynamic anterior plates provide a better graft loading possibly leading to accelerated spinal fusion with a lower incidence of implant complications. This, however, was investigated in vitro and does not necessarily mean to be the case in vivo, as well. Thus, the two major aspects of this study were to compare the speed of bone fusion and the rate of implant complications using either rigid- or dynamic plates. The study design is prospective, randomized, controlled, and multi-centric, having been approved by respective ethic committees of all participating sites. One hundred and thirty-two patients were included in this study and randomly assigned to one of the two groups, both undergoing routine level-1- or level-2 anterior cervical discectomy with autograft fusion receiving either a dynamic plate with screws being locked in ap - position (ABC, Aesculap, Germany), or a rigid plate (CSLP, Synthes, Switzerland). Segmental mobility and implant complications were compared after 3- and 6 months, respectively. All measurements were performed by an independent radiologist. Mobility results after 6 months were available for 77 patients (43 ABC/34 CSLP). Mean segmental mobility for the ABC group was 1.7 mm at the time of discharge, 1.4 mm after 3 months, and 0.8 mm after 6 months. For the CSLP- group the measurements were 1.0, 1.8, and 1.7 mm, respectively. The differences of mean segmental mobility were statistically significant between both groups after 6 months (P = 0.02). Four patients of the CSLP-group demonstrated surgical hardware complications, whereas no implant complications were observed within the ABC-group (P = 0.0375). Dynamic plate designs provided a faster fusion of the cervical spine compared with rigid plate designs after prior spinal surgery. Moreover, the rate of implant complications was lower within the group of patients receiving a dynamic plate. These interim results refer to a follow-up period of 6 months after prior spinal surgery. Further investigations will be performed 2 years postoperatively.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

    CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Brodke DS, Gollogly S, Alexander Mohr R, Nguyen BK, Dailey AT, Bachus AK (2001) Dynamic cervical plates: biomechanical evaluation of load sharing and stiffness. Spine 26:1324–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Brodsky AE, Khalil MA, Sassard WR, Newmann BP (1992) Repair of symptomatic pseudarthrosis of anterior cervical fusion. Posterior versus anterior repair. Spine 17:1137–1143

    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. Caspar W, Geisler FH, Pitzen T, Johnson TA (1989) Anterior cervical plate stabilization in one- and two-level degenerative disease: overtreatment or benefit? J Spin Disord 11:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  7. Chinoy MA, Parker MJ (1999) Fixed nail plates versus sliding hip systems for the treatment of trochanteric femoral fractures: a meta analysis of 14 studies. Injury 30:157–163

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Dvorak MF, Pitzen T, Zhu Q, Gordon JD, Fisher CG, Oxland TR (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 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hofmeister M, Bühren V (1999) Therapiekonzept für Verletzungen der unteren Halswirbelsäule. Orthopäde 5:401–413

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kim S, Kim S, Moon S, Choi S (2005) Outcome analysis of patients fusion with locking screw-plate and with dynamic abc screw-plate in degenerative disc disease. Eur Spine J 14(Suppl):S65

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lowery GL, McDonough RF (1998) The significance of hardware failure in anterior cervical plate fixation. Patients with 2- to 7-year follow-up. Spine 23:181–186

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Morscher E, Sutter F, Jenny H, Olerud S (1986 ) Anterior plating of the cervical spine with the hollow screw-plate system of titanium. Chirurg 11:702–707

    Google Scholar 

  15. Omeis I, DeMatta JA, Hillard VH, Murali R, Kaushik D (2004) History of instrumentation for stabilization of the subaxial cervical spine. Neurosurg Focus 16:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Orozco DR, Llovet TR (1971) Osteosintesis en las lesiones traumaticas y degeneratives de la columna vertebral. Revista Traumatol Chirurg Rehabil 1:45–52

    Google Scholar 

  17. Paramore CG, Dickmann CA, Sonntag VK (1996) Radiographic and clinical follow-up review of Caspar plates in 49 patients. J Neurosurg 84:957–961

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Pitzen T, Wilke HJ, Caspar W, Claes L, Steudel WI (1999) Biomechanical evaluation of a new monocortical screw for anterior cervical fusion and plating by a combined biomechanical and clinical study. Eur Spine J 8:382–387

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Robinson RA, Walker AE, Ferlic DC, Wieking DK (1962) The results of anterior interbody fusion of the cervical spine. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 44:1569–1587

    Google Scholar 

  20. 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 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. White AA, Southwick WO, Deponte RJ, Gainor JW, Hardy R (1973) Relief of pain by anterior cervical spine fusion for spondylosis: A report of sixty-five patients. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 55:525–534

    Google Scholar 

  23. Zdeblick TA, Ducker TB (1991) The use of freeze-dried allograft bone for anterior cervical fusions. Spine 16:726–729

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tobias Rainer Pitzen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stulik, J., Pitzen, T.R., Chrobok, J. et al. 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 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-007-0451-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-007-0451-6

Keywords

Navigation