Does Dynamic Anterior Plate Fixation Provide Adequate Stability for Traumatic Subaxial Cervical Spine Fractures at Mid-Term Follow-Up?

33 patients met the inclusion criteria (DP: 13; RP:20). Twenty-six patients suffered from AO Type B or C fractures. Both the sagittal alignment and the sagittal translation could be sufficiently improved in both groups (p ≥ 0.05). No significant loss of reduction could be observed at the follow-up in both groups (p ≥ 0.05). Bony consolidation could be observed in 30 patients (DP: 12/13 (92%); RP: 18/20 (90%); (p ≥ 0.05)). In 20 patients, PROMs could be evaluated (follow-up: 71.2 ± 25.5 months). The whole cohort showed satisfactory PROM results (EQ-5D: 72.0 ± 4.9; SF-36 PCS: 41.9 ± 16.2, MCS: 45.4 ± 14.9; NDI: 11.0 ± 9.1). without significant differences between the DP and RP group (p ≥ 0.05) Conclusion: The dynamic plate concept provides enough stability without a difference in fusion rates in comparison to rigid locking plates in a population that mostly suffered fragile fractures.