“…The biomechanical and radiographic outcomes implants reported in the literature were restoration of sagittal lordotic alignment (5 papers, 36 patients) [27,35,37,43,44] and intervertebral height (4 papers, 23 patients) [27,37,42,44], minimal subsidence (8 papers, 161 patients) [25, 27-29, 34, 35, 44, 46] or device migration (13 papers, 169 patients) [25, 28-30, 34, 35, 38-40, 43, 44, 46, 47], bone on-growth (4 papers, 12 patients) [25,31,33,40] and bony fusion (9 papers, 158 patients) [27-29, 32, 34, 37-39, 44]. There were two reported incidences of titanium hardware failure [31,33] and nine cases of clinically severe device subsidence (> 3 mm) [27,28,35]; this was asymptomatic in 8/9 patients; however, one case required surgical revision. Interbody fusion cages were retrieved in one case, and specimens were histologically analysed by Girolami et al [35], with reported bone ingrowth into the device lattice (osseointegration), with no evidence of inflammatory response cells or adverse host tissue response.…”