title: Dynamic anterior cervical plating for multi-level spondylosis: Does it help?
abstract: METHODS
  Randomized controlled trial.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To compare fusion rates, time to fusion, complication rates and subsidence between 1) a static, 2) a dynamic angulation, and 3) a dynamic translation plate in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for symptomatic degenerative cervical disease.
  
  
  METHODS
  Thirty-six patients with two level, symptomatic cervical degenerative changes requiring surgery were randomized in a blinded fashion to receive a statically locked plate, Cervical Spine Locking Plate (CSLP) (Synthes, Paoli, PN, USA), an Atlantis Vision(®) Anterior Cervical Plate System (Medtronic, Memphis, TN, USA) which allows angular dynamization, or a Premier(®) Anterior Cervical Plate System (Medtronic) which allows translational dynamization. Structured data collection and measurement protocols were used. Intervertebral composite allograft cages were used in all groups. Identical external immobilization and antiinflammatory medication protocols were followed. X-rays were obtained at preset time points postoperatively. Assessment of the primary outcomes was blinded. Rate of and time to fusion, graft/instrumentation complications, subsidence, and reoperation for adjacent level disease were measured. Paired t-test and three-way Analysis of Variance test (ANOVA) were used to assess statistical differences between groups.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The three groups were similar demographically. Fusion rates in the CSLP, Atlantis and Premier plate groups were 100%, 91%, and 92% respectively. Mean time to fusion was 6.1, 8.3 and 6.3 months respectively but differences were not statistically significant. Mean subsidence in the groups was 1.9, 1.6, and 2.6 mm respectively. Subsidence was found even for the static (CSLP) plate, but no statistically significant differences were found.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  We found no clinical advantage of dynamic plates over static plates with regards to fusion rates, time to fusion, subsidence, complications, or adjacent-level surgery. Static plating allows for subsidence at similar levels to dynamic plating. [Table: see text] The definiton of the different classes of evidence is available on page 83.
authors.affiliation: University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, MS, USA.
authors.forename: Ashraf A
authors.initials: AA
authors.lastname: Ragab
authors.forename: F Spain
authors.initials: FS
authors.lastname: Hodges
authors.forename: Clint P
authors.initials: CP
authors.lastname: Hill
authors.forename: Robert A
authors.initials: RA
authors.lastname: McGuire
authors.forename: Michelle
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Tucci
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Jan;25(1):41-5
references.pmid: 10647159
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001 Jun 15;26(12):1324-9
references.pmid: 11426146
references.citation: Spine J. 2004 Nov-Dec;4(6):636-43
references.pmid: 15541695
references.citation: Spine J. 2007 Mar-Apr;7(2):188-93
references.pmid: 17321968
references.citation: Spine J. 2009 Feb;9(2):121-7
references.pmid: 18261963
references.citation: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993 Sep;75(9):1298-307
references.pmid: 8408151
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1994 Mar 15;19(6):660-3
references.pmid: 8009330
references.citation: J Spinal Disord. 1999 Feb;12(1):45-9
references.pmid: 10078949