2. Wagner A, Haag E, Joerger AK, et al. Cement-augmented carbon fiber–reinforced pedicle screw instrumentation for spinal metastases: safety and efficacy. World Neurosurg 2021;154:e536-46.
3. Martins Coelho Junior VP, Dhaliwal JS, Chakravarthy VB. MIS technique for separation surgery in lumbar spine metastatic disease. Neurosurg Focus Video 2024;10:V11.
6. Khan HA, Ber R, Neifert SN, et al. Carbon fiber-reinforced PEEK spinal implants for primary and metastatic spine tumors: a systematic review on implant complications and radiotherapy benefits. J Neurosurg Spine 2023;39:534-47.
7. Perez-Roman RJ, Boddu JV, Bashti M, et al. The use of carbon fiber-reinforced instrumentation in patients with spinal oncologic tumors: a systematic review of literature and future directions. World Neurosurg 2023;173:13-22.
8. Shen FH, Gasbarrini A, Lui DF, et al. Integrated custom composite polyetheretherketone/carbon fiber (PEEK/CF) vertebral body replacement (VBR) in the treatment of bone tumors of the spine: a preliminary report from a multicenter study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2021;47:252-60.
11. Ringel F, Ryang YM, Kirschke JS, et al. Radiolucent carbon fiber–reinforced pedicle screws for treatment of spinal tumors: advantages for radiation planning and follow-up imaging. World Neurosurg 2017;105:294-301.
12. Nevelsky A, Borzov E, Daniel S, et al. Perturbation effects of the carbon fiber‐PEEK screws on radiotherapy dose distribution. J Appl Clin Méd Phys 2017;18:62-8.
14. Takayanagi A, Siddiqi I, Ghanchi H, et al. Radiolucent carbon fiber–reinforced implants for treatment of spinal tumors– clinical, radiographic, and dosimetric considerations. World Neurosurg 2021;152:61-70.
15. Zavras AG, Schoenfeld AJ, Patt JC, et al. Attitudes and trends in the use of radiolucent spinal implants: a survey of the North American Spine Society section of spinal oncology. North Am Spine Soc J (NASSJ) 2022;10:100105.
19. Ishikawa K, Toyone T, Shirahata T, et al. A novel method for the prediction of the pedicle screw stability. Clin Spine Surg 2018;31:E473-80.
21. Matsukawa K, Yato Y, Kato T, et al. In vivo analysis of insertional torque during pedicle screwing using cortical bone trajectory technique. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2014;39:E240-5.
22. Ozawa T, Takahashi K, Yamagata M, et al. Insertional torque of the lumbar pedicle screw during surgery. J Orthop Sci 2005;10:133-6.
24. Ikuma H, Hirose T. The surgical result of posterior stabilization using Transdiscal Screw for Diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (TSD) for thoracolumbar spinal fracture accompanied by diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH) in comparison with the conventional posterior stabilization (in Japanese). J Spine Res 2021;12:714-22.
25. Nakajima T, Nohda S, Hayama S, et al. Examination of factors affecting insertion and extraction torque of percutaneous pedicle screws (in Japanese). Cent Jpn J Orthop Traumat 2023;66:311-2.
26. Kuhns CA, Reiter M, Pfeiffer F, et al. Surgical strategies to improve fixation in the osteoporotic spine: the effects of tapping, cement augmentation, and screw trajectory. Glob Spine J 2013;4:47-54.
27. Chatzistergos PE, Sapkas G, Kourkoulis SK. The influence of the insertion technique on the pullout force of pedicle screws. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010;35:E332-7.
28. Bohl DD, Basques BA, Golinvaux NS, et al. Undertapping of lumbar pedicle screws can result in tapping with a pitch that differs from that of the screw, which decreases screw pullout force. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2015;40:E729-34.
29. Chung DD. Review: materials for vibration damping. J Mater Sci 2001;36:5733-7.
30. Geethamma VG, Asaletha R, Kalarikkal N, et al. Vibration and sound damping in polymers. Resonance 2014;19:821-33.