1. Anterior Cervical Fixation: Analysis of Load-Sharing and Stability with Use of Static and Dynamic Plates
by Darrel S. Brodke, Paul Klimo, Kent N. Bachus, John T. Braun, and Andrew T. Dailey
J Bone Joint Surg Am
Volume 88(7):
July 1, 2006
©2006 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.

2. Photograph of a cervical specimen fixed within the spine simulator with a full-length interbody spacer inserted and a translationally dynamic plate spanning C5.
Photograph of a cervical specimen fixed within the spine simulator with a full-length interbody spacer inserted and a translationally dynamic plate spanning C5. The inset illustrates the cross-sectional view of the interbody spacer. A Delrin plunger slides into an aluminum cylinder containing a subminiature load-cell. In the photograph, note the cable for the subminiature compression load-cell protruding from the specimen.
Darrel S. Brodke et al. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006;88:
©2006 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.

3. The static plate (ATLANTIS system with fixed-angle screws), the rotationally dynamic plate (ATLANTIS system with variable-angle screws), and the translationally dynamic plate (PREMIER).
The static plate (ATLANTIS system with fixed-angle screws), the rotationally dynamic plate (ATLANTIS system with variable-angle screws), and the translationally dynamic plate (PREMIER). The designs are licensed under one or more patents (numbers 6,193,721; 6,398,783; and 6,454,771) of G. Karlin Michelson, MD.
Darrel S. Brodke et al. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006;88:
©2006 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.

4. The mean percentage (and standard deviation) of load-sharing for the static anterior plate, rotationally dynamic system, and translationally dynamic system with the full-length grafts and with the grafts that had simulated subsidence of 10%.
The mean percentage (and standard deviation) of load-sharing for the static anterior plate, rotationally dynamic system, and translationally dynamic system with the full-length grafts and with the grafts that had simulated subsidence of 10%. For each type of plate, seven specimens were tested.
Darrel S. Brodke et al. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006;88:
©2006 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.

5. The mean range of motion (and standard deviation) after the specimens were loaded in flexion-extension with the static anterior cervical plate, the rotationally dynamic plate, and the translationally dynamic plate.
The mean range of motion (and standard deviation) after the specimens were loaded in flexion-extension with the static anterior cervical plate, the rotationally dynamic plate, and the translationally dynamic plate. For each type of plate, seven specimens were tested.
Darrel S. Brodke et al. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006;88:
©2006 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.

6. The mean range of motion (and standard deviation) after the specimens were loaded in lateral bending with the static anterior cervical plate, the rotationally dynamic plate, and the translationally dynamic plate.
The mean range of motion (and standard deviation) after the specimens were loaded in lateral bending with the static anterior cervical plate, the rotationally dynamic plate, and the translationally dynamic plate. For each type of plate, seven specimens were tested.
Darrel S. Brodke et al. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006;88:
©2006 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.

7. The mean range of motion (and standard deviation) after the specimens were loaded in axial rotation with the static anterior cervical plate, the rotationally dynamic plate, and the translationally dynamic plate.
The mean range of motion (and standard deviation) after the specimens were loaded in axial rotation with the static anterior cervical plate, the rotationally dynamic plate, and the translationally dynamic plate. For each type of plate, seven specimens were tested.
Darrel S. Brodke et al. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006;88:
©2006 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.