The historical rationale for operating on cranial fissures.

OBJECTIVE

Cranial fissures are not an indication for surgical intervention. It should be emphasised that the term fissure refers to linear skull fractures as defined in MESH. However, it was the universal term for this injury in the literature which forms the basis of this paper. Nonetheless, for over two millennia, their management was a major reason for opening the skull. The reasons for this deserve analysis, in particular taking into account the available technology and conceptual background.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The texts of significant surgical practitioners from Hippocrates to the eighteenth century were examined and analyzed.

RESULTS

The need for fissure surgery was based on Hippocrates' teaching. It was considered that extravasated blood would suppurate, and extracranial suppuration could leak inwards through a fracture. Trepanation to facilitate pus drainage and cleansing was considered vital. Avoiding surgical damage to the dura was also emphasized with a preference for operating only when the dura had separated from the cranium. The enlightenment with an increasing reliance on personal observation rather than the teachings of received authority enabled the accumulation of a more rational basis for treatment concerned with the effects of injury on brain function. This culminated in the teachings of Percivall Pott, who despite some minor errors, provided the framework on which modern treatments would develop.

CONCLUSIONS

Examination of the surgical management of cranial trauma from Hippocrates to the eighteenth century shows that cranial fissures were judged to be of great importance and required active treatment. This treatment was not aimed at improving the healing of the fracture but at avoiding deadly intracranial infection. It is worth noting that this sort of treatment persisted for over two millennia while modern management has only been practiced for just over a century. Who can say how it will change in the next hundred years.