Cranial surgery and the pericranium.

IF 0.3 3区 哲学 Q3 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Jeremy C Ganz
{"title":"Cranial surgery and the pericranium.","authors":"Jeremy C Ganz","doi":"10.1080/0964704X.2023.2229390","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In contemporary neurosurgery little attention is currently paid to the pericranium. The purpose of this article is to present how past surgeons have viewed this membrane and how they have reacted to its appearances. In ancient times, the pericranium was considered formed by the dura through the sutures and it retained a relationship with the dura via vessels in the sutures. It was considered advisable to strip it totally from any area to be examined for fissure fractures and also for any area to be trepanned, as pericranial injury led to fever and inflammation. In the eighteenth century, a new idea arose that posttraumatic spontaneous separation of the pericranium from the bone was a reliable indicator of the development of intracranial suppuration. This idea was subsequently refuted. The development of the osteoplastic bone flap imposed on the surgeon the need to ensure postoperative craniotomy closure included accurate apposition of the margins of the pericranium. With modern free bone flaps, this is no longer required. For over two millenia, the pericranium was considered to be an important membrane requiring the close attention of the surgeon. It is no longer required to receive more than minimal attention.</p>","PeriodicalId":49997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences","volume":" ","pages":"491-498"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the History of the Neurosciences","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0964704X.2023.2229390","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In contemporary neurosurgery little attention is currently paid to the pericranium. The purpose of this article is to present how past surgeons have viewed this membrane and how they have reacted to its appearances. In ancient times, the pericranium was considered formed by the dura through the sutures and it retained a relationship with the dura via vessels in the sutures. It was considered advisable to strip it totally from any area to be examined for fissure fractures and also for any area to be trepanned, as pericranial injury led to fever and inflammation. In the eighteenth century, a new idea arose that posttraumatic spontaneous separation of the pericranium from the bone was a reliable indicator of the development of intracranial suppuration. This idea was subsequently refuted. The development of the osteoplastic bone flap imposed on the surgeon the need to ensure postoperative craniotomy closure included accurate apposition of the margins of the pericranium. With modern free bone flaps, this is no longer required. For over two millenia, the pericranium was considered to be an important membrane requiring the close attention of the surgeon. It is no longer required to receive more than minimal attention.

颅骨手术和颅骨周围。
在当代神经外科中,目前很少关注颅周。这篇文章的目的是介绍过去的外科医生是如何看待这种膜的,以及他们对其外观的反应。在古代,颅周被认为是由硬脑膜通过缝合线形成的,它通过缝合线中的血管与硬脑膜保持着关系。建议将其从任何需要检查裂隙骨折的区域和任何需要钻孔的区域完全剥离,因为颅周损伤会导致发烧和炎症。在18世纪,一种新的观点出现了,即外伤后颅骨与骨骼的自发分离是颅内化脓发展的可靠指标。这一观点随后遭到驳斥。为确保开颅术后闭合,外科医生需要开发骨修复骨瓣,包括准确并置颅骨周围。有了现代的游离骨瓣,这就不再需要了。两千多年来,颅周一直被认为是一种重要的膜,需要外科医生的密切关注。它不再需要受到超过最低限度的关注。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of the History of the Neurosciences
Journal of the History of the Neurosciences 社会科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
20.00%
发文量
55
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of the History of the Neurosciences is the leading communication platform dealing with the historical roots of the basic and applied neurosciences. Its domains cover historical perspectives and developments, including biographical studies, disorders, institutions, documents, and instrumentation in neurology, neurosurgery, neuropsychiatry, neuroanatomy, neurophysiology, neurochemistry, neuropsychology, and the behavioral neurosciences. The history of ideas, changes in society and medicine, and the connections with other disciplines (e.g., the arts, philosophy, psychology) are welcome. In addition to original, full-length papers, the journal welcomes informative short communications, letters to the editors, book reviews, and contributions to its NeuroWords and Neurognostics columns. All manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by an Editor, and, if found suitable for further consideration, full- and short-length papers are subject to peer review (double blind, if requested) by at least 2 anonymous referees.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信