{"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.
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.