1. Murugan SS. Mechanical properties of materials: definition, testing and application. Int J Mod Stud Mech Eng. 2020;6(2):28-38. doi:10.20431/2454-9711.0602003.
2. Ribeiro AMA, da Silva FS, Gomes JRA, de Andrade Silva J, Bártolo PJ, Oliveira AL. Biomaterials in orthopedic devices: current issues and future perspectives. Materials (Basel). 2022;15(10):3622. doi:10.3390/ma15103622.
3. Geetha M, Singh AK, Asokamani R, Gogia AK. Ti based biomaterials, the ultimate choice for orthopaedic implants: a review. Prog Mater Sci. 2009;54(3):397-425. doi:10.1016/j.pmatsci.2008.06.004.
4. Oladapo BI, Zahedi SA, Ismail SO, Omigbodun FT, Ikumapayi OM, Afolalu SA. 3D printing of PEEK and its composite to increase biointerfaces as a biomedical material: a review. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2021;208:111726. doi:10.1016/j.colsurfb.2021.111726.
5. Ruffilli A, Fiore M, Palumbo A, Barletta P, D’Amato R, Faldini C. 5.5-mm cobalt-chrome vs 6-mm titanium alloy rods in surgical treatment of Lenke 1 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis with high-density pedicle screws and direct vertebral rotation on differently shaped rods: a retrospective comparative cohort study. Global Spine J. 2022;12(6):1170-7. doi:10.1177/21925682211058997.
6. Dorozhkin SV. Bioceramics of calcium orthophosphates. Biomaterials. 2010;31(7):1465-85. doi:10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.11.050.
7. Sobieraj MC, Rimnac CM. Ultra high molecular weight polyethylene: mechanics, morphology, and clinical behavior. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2009;2(5):433-43. doi:10.1016/j.jmbbm.2008.11.006.
8. Liljenqvist U, Hackenberg L, Link T, Halm H. Pullout strength of pedicle screws versus pedicle and laminar hooks in the thoracic spine. Acta Orthop Belg. 2001;67(2):157-63.
9. Wadhwa RK, Thakur JD, Khan IS, et al. Adjustment of suboptimally placed lumbar pedicle screws decreases pullout strength and alters biomechanics of the construct: a pilot cadaveric study. World Neurosurg. 2015;83(4):604-11. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2014.04.065.
10. Wu LC, Hsieh YY, Tsuang FY, et al. Pullout strength of different pedicle screws after primary and revision insertion: an in vitro study on polyurethane foam. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2023;24:863. doi:10.1186/s12891-023-07015-3.
11. Matsukawa K, Yato Y, Imabayashi H. Impact of screw diameter and length on pedicle screw fixation strength in osteoporotic vertebrae: a finite element analysis. Asian Spine J. 2021;15(5):566-74. doi:10.31616/asj.2020.0353.
12. Cho W, Cho SK, Wu C. The biomechanics of pedicle screw-based instrumentation. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;92(8):1061-5. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.92B8.24237.
13. Zamarioli A, Simões PA, Shimano AC, Defino HLA. Torque de inserção e resistência ao arrancamento dos parafusos vertebrais com alma cilíndrica e cônica. Rev Bras Ortop. 2008;43(10):452-9.
14. Shih KS, Hsu CC, Hou SM, Yu SC, Liaw CK. Comparison of the bending performance of solid and cannulated spinal pedicle screws using finite element analyses and biomechanical tests. Med Eng Phys. 2015;37(11):1091-6. doi:10.1016/j.medengphy.2015.06.008.
15. Ye B, Yan M, Zhu H, Duan W, Hu X, Ye Z, et al. Novel screw head design of pedicle screw for reducing the correction loss in the patients with thoracolumbar vertebral fractures: a biomechanical study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017;42(7):E379-84.
16. Liu MY, Tsai TT, Lai PL, Hsieh MK, Chen LH, Tai CL. Biomechanical comparison of pedicle screw fixation strength in synthetic bones: effects of screw shape, core/thread profile and cement augmentation. PLoS One. 2020;15(2):e0229328. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0229328.
17. Vendrame JRB, Shimano AC, Kandziora F, Defino HLA. Estudo da influência do diâmetro do orifício piloto na resistência ao arrancamento do parafuso pedicular. Acta Ortop Bras. 2008;16(2):69-74. doi:10.1590/S1413-78522008000200001.
18. Kanno H, Onoda Y, Hashimoto K, Aizawa T, Ozawa H. Reinforcement of percutaneous pedicle screw fixation with hydroxyapatite granules in patients with osteoporotic spine: biomechanical performance and clinical outcomes. Medicina (Kaunas). 2022;58(5):579. doi:10.3390/medicina58050579.
19. Solitro GF, Amirouche F. Currently adopted criteria for pedicle screw diameter selection. Spine Deform. 2018;6(6):751-9. doi:10.1016/j.jspd.2018.06.007.
20. Coe JD, Vaccaro AR, Dailey AT, Skolasky RL Jr, Sasso RC, Ludwig SC, et al. Lateral mass screw fixation in the cervical spine: a systematic literature review. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95(23):2136-43. doi:10.2106/JBJS.L.01522.
21. Lee S, Cho DC, Roh SW, et al. Cervical alignment after posterior cervical fusion surgery: pedicle screw versus lateral mass screw fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2021;46(10):E576-83. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000003845.
22. Jones EL, Heller JG, Silcox DH, Hutton WC. Cervical pedicle screws versus lateral mass screws: anatomic feasibility and biomechanical comparison. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1997;22(9):977-82. doi:10.1097/00007632-199705010-00009.
23. Soliman MAR, Aguirre AO, Khan S, et al. Complications associated with subaxial placement of pedicle screws versus lateral mass screws in the cervical spine (C2-T1): systematic review and meta-analysis comprising 4,165 patients and 16,669 screws. Neurosurg Rev. 2023;46(1):61. doi:10.1007/s10143-023-01968-8.
24. Heller JG, Silcox DH, Sutterlin CE. Complications of posterior cervical plating. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995;20(6):2442-8.
25. Teologia AA, Burch S. Safety and efficacy of reconstructing complex cervical spine pathology using pedicle screws inserted with Stealth navigation and O-Arm-guided 3D technology. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015;40(18):1397-406. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000001026.
26. Warburton A, Girdler SJ, Mikhail CM, Ahn A, Cho SK. Biomaterials in spinal implants: a review. Neurospine. 2020;17(1):101-10. doi:10.14245/ns.1938296.148.
27. Shega FD, Zhang H, Manini DR, Tang M, Liu S. Comparison of effectiveness between cobalt chromium rods versus titanium rods for treatment of patients with spinal deformity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Adv Orthop. 2020;2020:8475910. doi:10.1155/2020/8475910.
28. Kovacı H, Yetim AF, Çelik A. Biomechanical analysis of spinal implants with different rod diameters under static and fatigue loads: an experimental study. Biomed Eng-Biomed Tech. 2018. doi:10.1515/bmt-2017-0236.
29. Bourghli A, Boissière L, Kieser D, et al. Multiple-rod constructs do not reduce pseudarthrosis and rod fracture after pedicle subtraction osteotomy for adult spinal deformity correction but improve quality of life. Neurospine. 2021;18(4):816-23. doi:10.14245/ns.2142596.298.
30. Dvorak MF, MacNab I, eds. Anterior cervical plate fixation: a biomechanical study to evaluate the effects of plate design, endplate preparation, and bone mineral density. Spine. 2005;30(3):294-301. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000150813.51034.5e.
31. Kim SH, Kim JH, Kwon JW, Kim HS, Moon SH, Suk KS, Lee BH. Biomechanical advantage of pedicle screws over lateral mass screws in combined anterior-posterior cervical surgery: radiologic outcomes. J Clin Med. 2023;12(9):3201. doi:10.3390/jcm12093201.
32. Eck JC, Humphreys SC, Lim TH, Jeong ST, Kim JG, Hodges SD, et al. Biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine. 2002;27(22):2431-4.
33. Ryken TC, Clausen JD, Traynelis VC, Goel VK. Biomechanical analysis of bone mineral density, insertion technique, screw torque, and holding strength of anterior cervical plate screws. J Neurosurg. 1995;83(2):324-9. doi:10.3171/jns.1995.83.2.0324.
34. Brodke DS, Zdeblick TA, Kunz DN, McCabe R, Ogilvie JW. Anterior cervical fixation: analysis of load-sharing and stability with use of static and dynamic plates. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(7):1566-73. doi:10.2106/JBJS.E.00305.
35. Alvi MA, Kerezoudis P, Wahood W, Wahood A, Elder BD, Bydon M. Titanium cages versus polyetheretherketone cages in interbody fusions: a meta-analysis of clinical and radiographic outcomes. Spine J. 2024;24(6):911-22. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2024.05.009.
36. Hussain I, Konbaz FM, Ahmed SI, et al. Biomechanical stability analysis of a stand-alone cage, static and dynamic plate constructs in a two-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion model. Orthop Surg. 2019;11(4):603-9.
37. Wang Y, Zhang K, Li Y, et al. Effects of new assembled titanium mesh cage on the improvement in biomechanical performance of single-level anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion: a finite element analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2025;26:404.
38. Zhao Y, Yang S, Huo Y, Li Z, Yang D, Ding W. Locking stand-alone cage versus anterior plate construct in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials. Eur Spine J. 2020;29(12):3122-35. doi:10.1007/s00586-020-06561-x.
39. Boer LFR, Zorzetto E, Yeh F, Wajchenberg M, Martins DE. Degenerative cervical disorder: stand-alone cage versus cage and cervical plate: a systematic review. Global Spine J. 2020;10(5):571-80. doi:10.1177/2192568219876288.
40. El Baz EA, Sultan AM, Barakat AS, et al. The use of anterior cervical interbody spacer with integrated fixation screws for management of cervical disc disease. SICOT J. 2019;5:4.
41. Ni S, Yang R, Liu S, et al. Biomechanical analysis of a newly designed and 3D printed plate-locking interbody cage: an observational study of finite element analysis. Sci Rep. 2025;15:3534.
42. Patwardhan AG, Havey RM. Biomechanics of cervical disc arthroplasty: a review of concepts and current technology. Int J Spine Surg. 2020;14(Suppl 2):S14-28. doi:10.14444/7087.
43. Lentz JM, Mun F, Suresh KV, Groves ML, Sponseller PD. How and when to use hooks to improve deformity correction. JPOSNA. 2021 Nov;3(4).
44. Ogura Y, Glassman SD, Sucato D, Hresko MT, Carreon LY. Incidence of proximal junctional kyphosis with pedicle screws at upper instrumented vertebrae in posterior spinal fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Global Spine J. 2021;11(7):1019-24. doi:10.1177/2192568220935107.
45. Park SJ, Park JS, Kang DH, et al. Proximal junctional failure development despite achieving ideal sagittal correction according to age-adjusted alignment target in patients with adult spinal deformity: risk factor analysis of 196 cases undergoing low thoracic to pelvic fusion. Neurospine. 2024;21(4):1080-90. doi:10.14245/ns.2448734.367.
46. Helgeson MD, Shah SA, Newton PO, Clements DH, Betz RR, Marks MC, Bastrom T. Evaluation of proximal junctional kyphosis in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis following pedicle screw, hook, or hybrid instrumentation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(2):177-81. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c77f8c.
47. Canavese F, Samba A. Sublaminar polyester bands for the correction of idiopathic and neuromuscular scoliosis. Ann Transl Med. 2020;8(2):32. doi:10.21037/atm.2019.08.109.
48. Battista C, Wild C, Kreul S, Albert M. Prevention of proximal junctional kyphosis and failure using sublaminar bands in a hybrid construct in pediatric kyphosis deformity. Int J Spine Surg. 2018;12(6):644-9. doi:10.14444/5080.
49. Park BJ, Gold CJ, Christianson D, DeVries Watson NA, Nourski KV, Woodroffe RW, Hitchon PW. Biomechanical assessment of the effect of sublaminar band tensioning on lumbar motion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2022;37(6):836-42. doi:10.3171/2022.5.SPINE22371.
50. Gibbs D, Grossbach AJ, Mallory N, Toop N, Viljoen S. Delayed stenosis associated with sublaminar band placement in the thoracic spine for proximal junctional kyphosis. Surg Neurol Int. 2023;14:211. doi:10.25259/SNI_375_2022.
51. Cadieux C, Brzozowski P, Fernandes RJR, McGregor ME, Zdero R, Bailey CS, et al. Topping-off a long thoracic stabilization with semi-rigid constructs may have favorable biomechanical effects to prevent proximal junctional kyphosis: a biomechanical comparison. Global Spine J. 2025;15(3):1685-94. doi:10.1177/21925682241259695.
52. Liu SX, Feng AP, Zeng TH, Jhang SW, Chen CM, He LR, et al. 3Dprinted porous titanium versus polyetheretherketone cages in lateral lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of subsidence. Front Med (Lausanne). 2024;11:1389533. doi:10.3389/fmed.2024.1389533.
53. Patel NA, O’Bryant S, Rogers CD, Boyett CK, Chakravarti S, Gendreau J, et al. Three-dimensional-printed titanium versus polyetheretherketone cages for lumbar interbody fusion: a systematic review of comparative in vitro, animal, and human studies. Neurospine. 2024;21(3):764-78. doi:10.14245/ns.2346244.122.
54. Akpolat Y, Görgülü FF, Kizmaz M, Acaroglu E. Does the application of expandable cages in TLIF provide improved clinical and radiological results compared to static cages? A meta-analysis. Front Surg. 2022;9:949938. doi:10.3389/fsurg.2022.949938.