Table 5

Relationship between subsidence and surgical outcomes.

Authors (Year)	Nonunion	Revision Surgery	Other
Nemani et al (2014)56	N/A	4/12 (33.3%) patients requiring revision surgery was due to subsidence	N/A
Tempel et al (2018)34	N/A	Significant correlation between revision surgery and high-grade subsidence: (P < 0.05; OR: 12.95% CI: 1.29–13.6) −6.1% (18/296) required revision surgery due to subsidence (all patients with high-grade subsidence)	N/A
Chen et al (2019)23	No correlation between subsidence and fusion: P = 0.242	N/A	N/A
Lin et al (2019)13	Significant correlation Subsidence was a risk of nonunion OR: 17.24; 95% CI: 1.67–178.09	N/A	Significant correlation Subsidence was a risk of positive cyst OR: 8.37; 95% CI: 2.71–25.89
Park et al (2019)53	Fusion rate: No cage migration = 801/825 (97.1%) Cage migration with no subsidence = 11/20 (55%) Cage migration with subsidence = 15/36 (41.7%)	N/A	Significantly higher rate of screw loosening for the group with cage migration with subsidence compared with group with cage migration with no subsidence Cage migration with no subsidence = 2/20 (10%) Cage migration with subsidence = 22/36 (61.1%)