Abstract
Mild traumatic brain injuries (TBIs), particularly when repetitive in nature, are increasingly recognized to have a range of significant negative implications for brain health. Much of the ongoing research in the field is focused on the neurological consequences of these injuries and the relationship between TBIs and long-term neurodegenerative conditions such as chronic traumatic encephalopathy and Alzheimer's disease. However, our understanding of the complex relationship between applied mechanical force at impact, brain pathophysiology, and neurological function remains incomplete. Past research has shown that mild TBIs, even below the threshold that results in cranial fracture, induce changes in cranial bone structure and morphology. These structural and physiological changes likely have implications for the transmission of mechanical force into the underlying brain parenchyma. Here, we review this evidence in the context of the current understanding of bone mechanosensitivity and the consequences of TBIs or concussions. We postulate that heterogeneity of the calvarium, including differing bone thickness attributable to past impacts, age, or individual variability, may be a modulator of outcomes after subsequent TBIs. We advocate for greater consideration of cranial responses to TBI in both experimental and computer modeling of impact biomechanics, and raise the hypothesis that calvarial bone thickness represents a novel biomarker of brain injury vulnerability post-TBI.
Keywords: biomechanics, bone, calvarium, fracture, pathology, traumatic brain injury
Introduction
Mild traumatic brain injury (TBI), including injuries termed concussions, are commonly sustained during activities such as contact sports, assaults, falls, and in military combat.1 In children and adolescents, mild TBI (mTBI) accounts for ∼90% of all TBI cases.2 The high incidence of sport-related mTBI in youth in particular and the associated health ramifications of these injuries are of great concern internationally.3 Whereas a single mTBI may present with relatively benign symptoms and consequences, when TBIs are repetitive, the severity of symptoms typically increases (e.g., headache, fatigue, and memory problems), along with an elevated risk of long-term neurodegeneration and -cognitive deficits.4–7 Further, experiencing one mTBI appears to render a person more likely to sustain further TBIs.8
To date, research into the effects of single or repetitive mTBI has focused almost exclusively on how these impacts affect the brain itself; while largely neglecting potential involvement of the overlying cranium, which houses and protects the brain. Historically, the cranium has predominantly been studied in the context of severe trauma to the head, in which impact-induced skull fractures contribute to increased mortality and morbidity.9–11 Further, though many years of computer simulations have incorporated the cranium in the modeling of brain biomechanics upon impact to the head,12 the bone is typically depicted as a simple, inert, and rigid material.13–15
However, cranial bone is, in fact, a dynamic and mechanosensitive living tissue, responsive to applied mechanical forces as well as its molecular and cellular microenvironment.16 Recent experimental studies have reported that repeated mTBI induces changes in cranial bone composition and structure,17,18 whereas other studies have highlighted impact-induced changes in meningeal lymphatic endothelial cells and vasculature as associated with a neuroinflammatory response.19–22 These extracerebral effects of an mTBI plausibly have consequences for neuropathology in the associated brain parenchyma and subsequent implications for neurological outcomes for persons with TBI.
We herein review this recent evidence in the context of our current understanding about bone mechanics and the consequences of TBI or concussions on brain structure and function. We build a case suggesting that TBI-induced cranial bone changes may be an important modulator of outcomes after subsequent TBIs, and advocate for greater consideration of cranial responses to TBi in computer modeling.
Fundamental Concepts
If you cast your mind back to undergraduate neuroanatomy classes, you will recall that the brain is closely enveloped in several protective structures, including the highly cellularized and heterogeneous meningeal layers (the pia mater, arachnoid mater, and dura mater), the cranium, pericranium (periosteum), areolar tissue, galea aponeurotica, and skin. The subarachnoid space lies between the pia mater and arachnoid mater and is filled with cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and vasculature in close association with the lymphatic system.23 As a subdivision of the skull (a term that also includes the facial skeleton and the mandible or lower jaw), the cranium is made up of the calvarium enclosing the cranial cavity, which houses the brain. Calvaria consist of large flat bones, such as the frontal, occipital, and the two parietal bones, which are tightly joined together by sutures. Sutures are connective tissues rich in collagenous fibers that increase the elasticity and compliance of the cranium, acting as shock absorbers by absorbing more energy during impact loading compared to the surrounding bone.24,25
A TBI or concussion can occur as a result of direct or indirect impact to the head (e.g., blunt or penetrating impact, or a blast shock wave), rapid acceleration, and/or deceleration of the head. Mechanical impacts to the head result in loading regimes (the combination of external forces acting on the head tissues) and deformation regimes (the integral strain and stress regime across the head tissues associated with the loading regime).26 These strains and stressors interact with the impacted object (the head). Neither the head nor the cranium are uniform or simple structures, which causes considerable complexity for scientists, clinicians, biomechanical engineers, and physicists attempting to define the impact-deformation relationships of head tissues and understand how and why a given TBI results in neurological consequences. However, put simply, a TBI occurs when the physical load to the head exceeds its capacity to absorb the force without injury to the brain tissue.27
Calvaria Impacts Contribute to Traumatic Brain Injury Pathology
Calvaria fractures caused by blunt-impact TBIs are dependent on the velocity of the impact force and can lead to TBI.28–33 The likelihood of calvaria fracture resulting from blunt impact is also dependent upon the geometry and compliance of the bone and the resulting tensile strain.34 Thus, the heterogeneous nature of calvarium morphology, varying across anatomical locations, determines differential risk of fracture when blunt impacts are sustained to different aspects of the head.35–39 Further, the cranium does not respond to external mechanical stimuli in isolation. Rather, an impact force propagates through the bone and into the underlying, closely associated meninges. These meninges are comprised of heterogeneous cell types with distinct mechanical properties, depending upon variables such as the extent of vascularization and cell density.40
At high-impact velocities, calvarial fracture dissipates at least some of the impact energy, which reduces its transfer into the underlying brain tissue. Thus, fractures resulting from high-velocity blunt impacts are likely to reduce the risk of diffuse brain injury, but may increase the risk of brain contusion.39 In one study, the evaluation of TBIs resulting from motor vehicle accidents found that the presence of cranial fractures, in fact, lowered the incidence of intracranial lesions, which the researchers surmised to be attributable to reduced intracranial pressure.41 However, considerable evidence from both clinical and experimental studies demonstrates that the presence of a calvarial fracture reflects a more severe brain injury and is typically associated with worse outcomes. For example, observational studies in severe TBI patients have found that those with a cranial vault or cranial base fracture have an increased risk of death, whereas the odds ratio of in-hospital mortality was even higher for those who sustain fractures at both sites.10,11 In adolescents and adults with TBIs, cranial fracture has been identified as a stand-out significant independent risk factor for the development of intracranial hemorrhage.9,42 Further, the risk of developing post-traumatic epilepsy is substantially elevated by an impact-induced cranial fracture (compared to those who sustain a TBI but no fracture).43
Animal models have provided some insight into the pathophysiology that results from a calvarial fracture resulting from blunt force impact. For example, in a weight-drop injury model, mice that exhibit a fracture show an exacerbated inflammatory response compared to injured mice without fractures, with the investigators concluding that fractures account for a notable proportion of the variability observed in this model.44 Even bone fractures in more remote locations, such as in the limbs, result in worse neuropathological and neurological outcomes after a TBI,45–47 indicative of complex bidirectional signaling mechanisms at play beyond isolated consideration of the brain's response to impact force.
The relationship between calvarial trauma and mTBI (i.e., below the threshold of impact that induces a bone fracture) is even less well defined.48 This is attributable to factors including ambiguity around the definitions and diagnosis of mTBI and concussion,32,49 as well as the involvement of both linear and rotational/acceleration forces associated with concussions. Helmet or mouth guard-mounted impact sensors to collect in vivo real-time data on TBIs sustained during participation in contact sports is helping one to better understand the forces required to induce a concussion (e.g., see past works50–52). However, even exposure to mTBIs that do not result in known or suspected clinical symptoms (i.e., a “subconcussive” impact) may nonetheless result in physiological, anatomical, and neurological alterations when repetitive in nature.53,54 In the next section, we postulate that even if the cranium does not fracture, variation in bone thickness to alter surface area and bone density may reduce the impact strains that result in brain injury, and that such changes may contribute to the biomechanics of mTBI.
Mild Traumatic Brain Injuries Alter the Calvarial Bone and Underlying Meninges
Much of what we know about the effects of TBIs on the cranium relates to fractures, as described above. However, only a subpopulation of moderate and severe TBI cases are associated with fracture. mTBI, by definition, is typically at a severity below that which results in a fracture, but nonetheless can have serious and long-lasting consequences.55,56 A recent systematic review of clinical evidence concluded that the cranium can be deformed even by an mTBI.57 Further, several case studies suggest that damage proximal to the cranial base in particular can contribute to neurovascular dysfunction, which may underlie some of the acute symptoms associated with concussion, such as dizziness and headache.57
Emerging pre-clinical research has demonstrated that mild impacts to the head, below the bone's optimal strain environment, can also has a notable effect on the calvarium. Using micro computed tomography (CT) and models of repetitive mTBI in rodents, two studies from our group have indicated that mTBIs result in increased cranial thickness.17,18 We first reported that a single mTBI to male adolescent mice led to increased calvarial bone volume 5 weeks later.18 This increased bone appeared to provide protection against cranial fracture, given that the fracture incidence was considerably lower in this group when subjected to a subsequent mTBI, compared to an age-matched control group who had not received a past mTBI impact.18 More recently, we reported that young adult female rats exposed to two or three repeated mTBIs exhibited time- and location-dependent increases in bone thickness and density at the site of impact.17 Together, these findings represent a phenomenon of increased cranial thickness after mechanical trauma, which can be observed in different TBI models, species, or injury locations.
Of note, these findings to date are primarily qualitative, with little exploration of the biological mechanisms by which an applied blunt impact force drives an increase in cranial thickness. However, consistent with observations in the context of tibial compression, it is likely that impacts to the cranium induce a local reparative response, including increased bone formation by osteoblasts.58,59 Indeed, comparison of cells from load-bearing bones versus non-loaded bones has revealed innate differences in their sensitivity to mechanical loading, leading some researchers to propose that bone cells are either programmed to their physical environment or can adapt and adjust their mechanosensitivity in response to different strain environments.60
Further, recent studies have also demonstrated that the meninges mount a dynamic transcriptomic response to mTBI,20,22 which is more pronounced in the aging brain, and may contribute to age-related vulnerability and poor neurological outcomes.22 mTBI causes changes in meningeal lymphatic vascular morphology and associated impairments in drainage, with some evidence that lymphatic deficits contribute to the exacerbation of TBI-induced inflammation and cognitive dysfunction.61 Most recently, new evidence has emerged demonstrating that CSF can access bone marrow niches within the cranium to regulate local immune responses in the context of spinal cord injury and bacterial meningitis.62,63 It is plausible that mTBIs also perturb these cranial marrow cavities and their resident immune and hematopoetic stem cells after an mTBI, to influence the effect of the impact on the underlying brain tissue, although empirical evidence of this is currently lacking.
Individual Variability in Calvarial Thickness
When considering the effects of isolated or repetitive mTBI on the cranium, it is also important to note the inherent population-wide heterogeneity in human cranial structure and morphology, including thickness. For example, thickness of the frontal bone has been reported to range from 3.5 to over 11 mm, alongside individual variability in the ratio of diploë to the outer bone tables and morphological differences evident by histology.64,65
Multiple factors can influence calvarial thickness, beginning during early development. Growth of the brain and cranium are dynamic and intimately integrated through common molecular signaling pathways and responsiveness to mechanical forces to ensure an appropriately snug fit.66,67 For example, the growing brain generates tensile strain on the developing cranial bones, which promotes bone remodeling to accommodate the expanding neural tissue.68 This relationship is well represented by cases of hydrocephalus, in which excess CSF results in abnormal pressure within the cranial vault. If left untreated, this pressure leads to thinning of the bone. Early-life placement of a ventricular shunt can, albeit rarely, instead result in chronic intracranial hypotension, leading to thickening of the calvarium in a condition known as hyperostosis cranii ex vacuo.69-72 In addition, congenital abnormalities in cranial vault development, such as craniosynostosis (the premature fusing of one or more cranial sutures), can also lead to an abnormal calvarium shape and thickness.73,74
In the normally developing skull, the complexity and strength of cranial sutures increases with age, with suture morphology reflecting the loading and deformation regimes applied by growth of the neighboring bones.75 Calvarial thickness increases through adolescence to early adulthood, with the greatest increase in regions that are subject to the greatest stress, before a gradual decline with advancing age.76,77 The skull undergoes its maximal transformation between infancy and adulthood, in terms of shape, stability (suture elasticity), and bone morphology (e.g., porosity of the diploë layer), with consequences for cranial strength and rigidity.78
Individual variability in calvarial thickness is also determined by sex (dependent on the cranial region/bone), stature, body mass index, ancestry, and head size.65,77,79–83 Although, historically, calvarial thickness was assessed with the use of calipers, measurements can now be made from CT images, three-dimensional models derived from CT data, and computational models.77,79 Adoption of these techniques has allowed for a greater appreciation of population heterogeneity on cranial bone structure and shape.65 However, whether this heterogeneity influences the dissipation of the forces resulting from a TBI is unknown.
Calvarial Thickness as a Moderator of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury?
The above-described evidence indicates that calvarial thickness is dependent upon numerous variables, including age and sex, and suggests that exposure to mTBIs can also moderate calvarial thickness by promoting bone formation. Together, these findings raise the intriguing possibility that differences in calvarial thickness may contribute to a person's risk of (or reslience against) symptomology after repetitive mTBI and influence the extent of brain damage that results from an mTBI.
This hypothesis is plausible based on several considerations. First, from an engineering perspective, increased bone thickness may be a protective mechanism to combat tissue strains and prevent fracture. Increased calvarial thickness results in increased bone strength,64 which theoretically limits the transmission of force to the underlying meninges and brain parenchyma. However, the actual consequences of thicker calvarial bone on the extent of brain damage after mTBI, either from isolated or repetitive impacts, warrants further exploration. Changes in cranial thickness may alter load pathways, loading, and deformation regimes into the underlying brain tissue, as well as the direction or diffusion of strain,64 which could conversely exacerbate neuropathology.
Further, given that epidemiological studies have identified variables such as age and sex as moderators of mTBI outcomes,84 age- and sex-based differences in calvarial thickness may be one of the mechanisms underlying this relationship. For example, because of developmental changes in cranial bone thickness with maturation, the child and adolescent cranium has a lower capacity compared to adult bone to act as a shock absorber for applied mechanical forces. In alignment with this rationale, older mice with thicker parietal bones have been shown to have a reduced risk of cranial fracture from a weight-drop injury model compared to young adult mice with thinner bone,44 suggesting that a thicker cranium yields protection against fracture and the associated consequences of this damage.
Further supporting this evidence is an older study by Ruan and Prasad, in which they used an ultrasonic tranducer to obtain high-resolution measurements of frontal bone thickness in human cadavers to inform a finite element model. They reported that a thicker cranium results in a lesser degree of bone deformation upon impact, and concluded that a thicker cranium therefore provides increased protection for the brain. Whereas this finding has implications for resistance to cranial fracture, as noted by the researchers, the influence of differential calvarial thickness on the effects of mTBI for the brain is less clear.
Research Challenges, Opportunities, and Implications
Research in the field of mTBI is rapidly evolving, and new evidence about vulnerability versus resilience factors has considerable implications for public policy, medicolegal interpretations, education, and healthcare. A more holistic understanding of how extracerebral tissues contribute to brain injury outcomes may represent a missing piece in the puzzle to better predict patient outcomes and design appropriate treatment strategies. Animal models of repetitive mTBI allow for the evaluation of in vivo physiological responses to TBIs across a time course12,18,85,86; yet, species differences in the anatomy of both the brain and cranium can limit translation of these findings to humans. A popular alternative is to examine human cadavers, providing valuable insights into the response of different bone structures to mechanical impact and the understanding of how loads change as forces pass through the cranium.64,80,87
However, these scenarios lack an appreciation for how the transmitted force then enters the living brain. To bridge this gap, computer modeling can prove invaluable to assess the contribution of material properties of the head on the transmission of forces upon impact.12,14,15,88 Further, recent work in human volunteers has been evaluating the impact of low levels of acceleration on the living brain and cranium by magnetic resonance imaging, including diffusion tensor imaging and magnetic resonance elastography, to better inform computer modeling.89
Ideally, these different approaches should be used in a complementary way. For example, sophisticated and accurate computer modeling of the brain under mechanical force from blunt force impact to the head requires accurate representation of the tissues involved as dynamic structures—including the scalp, cranium, vasculature, meninges, and CSF.90,91 Increasing studies have reported on complex heterogeneity in structure and mechanical responsiveness of the meningeal layers40,92—findings that also have implications for how traumatic impacts to the head propagate through to the brain itself. Even the brain vasculature has been recognized to contribute to the load-bearing capacity of the brain, with major blood vessels in particular being important predictors of the brain strain resulting from diffuse or rotational impacts to the brain.91
It remains to be confirmed whether cranial bone thickness is indeed a modifier of how the force from a blunt force impact to the head leads to an mTBI. If this hypothesis is correct, then it would have considerable implications for the field. Together, such research may lead to more realistic injury prediction, improved risk-mitigation strategies, and the development of improved protective gear.93 Cranial thickness determined by CT scan may be a novel predictor of outcomes after repetitive mTBI, whereby a thinner cranium renders a person more vulnerable to worse outcomes after injury. Conversely, identification of persons with a thicker cranium after mTBI impacts (compared to either a baseline pre-injury assessment or population-based reference measurements) may have utility as a novel objective biomarker of past mTBI exposures, with implications for return-to-play decisions for athletes and return-to-combat decisions for military personnel. An improved understanding of the degree to which cranial thickness determines the consequences of mTBI may also have broader implications for medicolegal matters and in forensic medicine (e.g., in the identification of persons exposed to repetitive physical domestic abuse).
Conclusion
A significant knowledge gap exists in our understanding of the effects of mechanical forces applied to the head at a magnitude below that which induces a cranial fracture. We advocate for increased research in the field toward a more holistic appreciation for how TBIs may influence extracerebral structures and tissues, including the cranium and meninges, and how these interact with the brain parenchyma. Based upon emerging evidence of cranial bone variability, both endogenously and in response to impact, we also propose that animal and computer modeling should consider individual differences in calvarial thickness, and take into account changes in calvarium material properties with age and sex, to ensure that we are appropriately modeling the population at greatest risk of repeated mTBI. The recent generation of reference measurements from the crania of >600 persons, accounting for bone region, sex, age, and ancestry, may prove to be a useful resource for interpreting a person's cranium as being of abnormal thickness.65 Yet, further research is needed to empirically demonstrate the potential role of cranial thickness on neurological outcomes after mTBI.
Acknowledgments
Although this article did not receive any direct funding, B.D.S. and O.P. are supported by internal funds from Monash University and Monash Biomedicine Discovery Institute. B.D.S. is also supported by an Epilepsy Research Program Idea Development Award (no. W81XWH-19-ERP-IDA) from the U.S. Department of Defense and a Veski Near-Miss Grant.
Abbreviations Used
- CSF
cerebrospinal fluid
- CT
computed tomography
- mTBI
mild traumatic brain injury
- TBI
traumatic brain injury
Authors' Contributions
B.D.S.: Conceptualization (equal); writing–original draft (lead); writing–review and editing (equal). O.P.: Conceptualization (equal); writing–original draft (supporting); writing–review and editing (equal).
Transparency, Rigor, and Reproducibility Summary
No original data were generated for the purpose of this review. Study preregistration was not performed because it was not possible to do so in a meaningful way in the context of a review article.
Author Disclosure Statement
No competing financial interests exist.
Cite this article as: Semple BD, Panagiotopoulou O. Cranial bone changes induced by mild traumatic brain injuries: a neglected player in concussion outcomes? Neurotrauma Reports 2023:4(1):396–403. doi: 10.1089/neur.2023.0025.
References
- 1. Levin HS, Diaz-Arrastia RR. Diagnosis, prognosis, and clinical management of mild traumatic brain injury. Lancet Neurol 2015;14(5):506–517. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). HEADS UP to Health Care Providers. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Atlanta, GA; 2015. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/headsup/providers/index.html [Last accessed: June 6, 2023].
- 3. Semple BD, Lee S, Sadjadi R, et al. Repetitive concussions in adolescent athletes—translating clinical and experimental research into perspectives on rehabilitation strategies. Front Neurol 2015;6:69; doi: 10.3389/fneur.2015.00069 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Bolton Hall AN, Joseph B, Brelsfoard JM, et al. Repeated closed head injury in mice results in sustained motor and memory deficits and chronic cellular changes. PLoS One 2016;11(7):e0159442; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159442 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Gold EM, Vasilevko V, Hasselmann J, et al. Repeated mild closed head injuries induce long-term white matter pathology and neuronal loss that are correlated with behavioral deficits. ASN Neuro 2018;10:1759091418781921; doi: 10.1177/1759091418781921 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Mao Y, Black AMB, Milbourn HR, et al. The effects of a combination of ion channel inhibitors in female rats following repeated mild traumatic brain injury. Int J Mol Sci 2018;19(11):3408; doi: 10.3390/ijms19113408. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Yates NJ, Lydiard S, Fehily B, et al. Repeated mild traumatic brain injury in female rats increases lipid peroxidation in neurons. Exp Brain Res 2017;235(7):2133–2149. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Zemper ED. Two-year prospective study of relative risk of a second cerebral concussion. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2003;82(9):653–659. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Chan KH, Mann KS, Yue CP, et al. The significance of skull fracture in acute traumatic intracranial hematomas in adolescents: a prospective study. J Neurosurg 1990;72(2):189–194. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Fujiwara G, Okada Y, Ishii W, et al. Association of skull fracture with in-hospital mortality in severe traumatic brain injury patients. Am J Emerg Med 2021;46:78–83; doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2021.03.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Tseng WC, Shih HM, Su YC, et al. The association between skull bone fractures and outcomes in patients with severe traumatic brain injury. J Trauma 2011;71(6):1611–1614; discussion, 1614; doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e31823a8a60 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Lamy M, Baumgartner D, Willinger R, et al. Study of mild traumatic brain injuries using experiments and finite element modeling. Ann Adv Automot Med 2011;55:125–135. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Lamy M, Baumgartner D, Yoganandan N, et al. Experimentally validated three-dimensional finite element model of the rat for mild traumatic brain injury. Med Biol Eng Comput 2013;51(3):353–365. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Fijalkowski RJ, Yoganandan N, Zhang J, et al. A finite element model of region-specific response for mild diffuse brain injury. Stapp Car Crash J 2009;53:193–213. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Finan JD. Biomechanical simulation of traumatic brain injury in the rat. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2019;64:114–121; doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2018.01.015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Bergmann P, Body JJ, Boonen S, et al. Loading and skeletal development and maintenance. J Osteoporos 2010;2011:786752; doi: 10.4061/2011/786752 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Dill LK, Sims NA, Shad A, et al. Localized, time-dependent responses of rat cranial bone to repeated mild traumatic brain injuries. bioRxiv (preprint) 2021; doi: 10.1101/2021.12.12.472300 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. McColl TJ, Brady RD, Shultz SR, et al. Mild traumatic brain injury in adolescent mice alters skull bone properties to influence a subsequent brain impact at adulthood: a pilot study. Front Neurol 2018;9:372. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Liao J, Zhang M, Shi Z, et al. Improving the function of meningeal lymphatic vessels to promote brain edema absorption after traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma 2023;40(3–4):383–394; doi: 10.1089/neu.2022.0150 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Shimada R, Tatara Y, Kibayashi K. Gene expression in meningeal lymphatic endothelial cells following traumatic brain injury in mice. PLoS One 2022;17(9):e0273892; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0273892 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. McNamara EH, Knutsen A, Korotcov A, et al. Meningeal and visual pathway magnetic resonance imaging analysis after single and repetitive closed-head impact model of engineered rotational acceleration (CHIMERA)-induced disruption in male and female mice. J Neurotrauma 2022;39(11–12):784–799; doi: 10.1089/neu.2021.0494 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Bolte AC, Shapiro DA, Dutta AB, et al. The meningeal transcriptional response to traumatic brain injury and aging. Elife 2023;12:e81154; doi: 10.7554/eLife.81154 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Derk J, Jones HE, Como C, et al. Living on the edge of the CNS: meninges cell diversity in health and disease. Front Cell Neurosci 2021;15:703944. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Jaslow CR. Mechanical properties of cranial sutures. J Biomech 1990;23(4):313–321. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Maloul A, Fialkov J, Whyne CM. Characterization of the bending strength of craniofacial sutures. J Biomech 2013;46(5):912–917. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Panagiotopoulou O, Iriarte-Diaz J, Mehari Abraha H, et al. Biomechanics of the mandible of Macaca mulatta during the power stroke of mastication: loading, deformation, and strain regimes and the impact of food type. J Hum Evol 2020;147:102865. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Young L, Rule GT, Bocchieri RT, et al. When physics meets biology: low and high-velocity penetration, blunt impact, and blast injuries to the brain. Front Neurol 2015;6:89. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Faul M, Coronado V. Epidemiology of traumatic brain injury. Handb Clin Neurol 2015;127:3–13; doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-52892-6.00001-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Ahmad S, Afzal A, Rehman L, et al. Impact of depressed skull fracture surgery on outcome of head injury patients. Pak J Med Sci 2018;34(1):130–134; doi: 10.12669/pjms.341.13184 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Adams JH, Doyle D, Ford I, et al. Diffuse axonal injury in head injury: definition, diagnosis and grading. Histopathology 1989;15(1):49–59. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Carson HJ. Brain trauma in head injuries presenting with and without concurrent skull fractures. J Forensic Leg Med 2009;16(3):115–120; doi: 10.1016/j.jflm.2008.08.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Young LA, Rule GT, Bocchieri RT, et al. Biophysical mechanisms of traumatic brain injuries. Semin Neurol 2015;35(1):5–11; doi: 10.1055/s-0035-1544242 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Coronado VG, Xu L, Basavaraju SV, et al. ; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Surveillance for traumatic brain injury-related deaths—United States, 1997–2007. MMWR Surveill Summ 2011;60(5):1–32. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Wood JL. Dynamic response of human cranial bone. J Biomech 1971;4(1):1–12; doi: 10.1016/0021-9290(71)90010-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Barbosa A, Fernandes FAO, Alves de Sousa RJ, et al. Computational modeling of skull bone structures and simulation of skull fractures using the YEAHM head model. Biology (Basel) 2020;9(9):267; doi: 10.3390/biology9090267 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. De Kegel D, Meynen A, Famaey N, et al. Skull fracture prediction through subject-specific finite element modelling is highly sensitive to model parameters. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2019;100:103384; doi: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2019.103384 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Zwirner J, Safavi S, Scholze M, et al. Topographical mapping of the mechanical characteristics of the human neurocranium considering the role of individual layers. Sci Rep 2021;11(1):3721; doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-80548-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Kiriyama Y, Sato Y, Muramatsu Y, et al. Analysis of relationship between loading condition and cranial cracking pattern using a three-dimensional finite element model. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2022;23(1):310; doi: 10.1186/s12891-022-05215-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Ren L, Wang D, Liu X, et al. Influence of skull fracture on traumatic brain injury risk induced by blunt impact. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020;17(7):2392; doi: 10.3390/ijerph17072392 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Fabris G, Z MS, Kurt M. Micromechanical heterogeneity of the rat pia-arachnoid complex. Acta Biomater 2019;100:29–37. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Yavuz MS, Asirdizer M, Cetin G, et al. The correlation between skull fractures and intracranial lesions due to traffic accidents. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 2003;24(4):339–345; doi: 10.1097/01.paf.0000103011.14578.c3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Faried A, Halim D, Widjaya IA, et al. Correlation between the skull base fracture and the incidence of intracranial hemorrhage in patients with traumatic brain injury. Chin J Traumatol 2019;22(5):286–289; doi: 10.1016/j.cjtee.2019.05.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43. Xu T, Yu X, Ou S, et al. Risk factors for posttraumatic epilepsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Epilepsy Behav 2017;67:1–6; doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2016.10.026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44. Zvejniece L, Stelfa G, Vavers E, et al. Skull fractures induce neuroinflammation and worsen outcomes after closed head injury in mice. J Neurotrauma 2020;37(2):295–304; doi: 10.1089/neu.2019.6524 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45. Haffner-Luntzer M, Weber B, Morioka K, et al. Altered early immune response after fracture and traumatic brain injury. Front Immunol 2023;14:1074207. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46. Shultz SR, Sun M, Wright DK, et al. Tibial fracture exacerbates traumatic brain injury outcomes and neuroinflammation in a novel mouse model of multitrauma. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 2015;35(8):1339–1347. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47. Suto Y, Nagata K, Ahmed SM, et al. Cerebral edema and neurological recovery after traumatic brain injury are worsened if accompanied by a concomitant long bone fracture. J Neurotrauma 2019;36(4):609–618; doi: 10.1089/neu.2018.5812 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48. Guskiewicz KM, Mihalik JP. Biomechanics of sport concussion: quest for the elusive injury threshold. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 2011;39(1):4–11; doi: 10.1097/JES.0b013e318201f53e [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49. Zhang L, Yang KH, King AI. A proposed injury threshold for mild traumatic brain injury. J Biomech Eng 2004;126(2):226–236. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50. Bartsch A, Dama R, Alberts J, et al. Measuring blunt force head impacts in athletes. Mil Med 2020;185(Suppl 1):190–196. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51. Dsouza H, Pastrana J, Figueroa J, et al. Flexible, self-powered sensors for estimating human head kinematics relevant to concussions. Sci Rep 2022;12(1):8567; doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-12266-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52. Marks ME, Holcomb TD, Pritchard NS, et al. Characterizing exposure to head acceleration events in youth football using an instrumented mouthpiece. Ann Biomed Eng 2022;50(11):1620–1632. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53. Lavender AP, Georgieva J, Takechi R. A suggested new term and definition to describe the cumulative physiological and functional effects of non-injurious head impacts. Front Neurol 2022;13:799884. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54. Bailes JE, Petraglia AL, Omalu BI, et al. Role of subconcussion in repetitive mild traumatic brain injury. J Neurosurg 2013;119(5):1235–1245. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55. Daneshvar D, Riley D, Nowinski C, et al. Long-term consequences: effects on normal development profile after concussion. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am 2011;22(4):683–700, ix; doi: 10.1016/j.pmr.2011.08.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56. Huber BR, Alosco ML, Stein TD, et al. Potential long-term consequences of concussive and subconcussive injury. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am 2016;27(2):503–511; doi: 10.1016/j.pmr.2015.12.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57. Distriquin Y, Vital JM, Ella B. Biomechanical analysis of skull trauma and opportunity in neuroradiology interpretation to explain the post-concussion syndrome: literature review and case studies presentation. Eur Radiol Exp 2020;4(1):66; doi: 10.1186/s41747-020-00194-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58. Castillo AB, Leucht P. Bone homeostasis and repair: forced into shape. Curr Rheumatol Rep 2015;17(9):58; doi: 10.1007/s11926-015-0537-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59. De Souza RL, Matsuura M, Eckstein F, et al. Non-invasive axial loading of mouse tibiae increases cortical bone formation and modifies trabecular organization: a new model to study cortical and cancellous compartments in a single loaded element. Bone 2005;37(6):810–818. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60. Turner CH, Robling AG, Duncan RL, et al. Do bone cells behave like a neuronal network? Calcif Tissue Int 2002;70(6):435–442; doi: 10.1007/s00223-001-1024-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61. Bolte AC, Dutta AB, Hurt ME, et al. Meningeal lymphatic dysfunction exacerbates traumatic brain injury pathogenesis. Nature Commun 2020;11(1):4524. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62. Mazzitelli JA, Smyth LCD, Cross KA, et al. Cerebrospinal fluid regulates skull bone marrow niches via direct access through dural channels. Nat Neurosci 2022;25(5):555–560. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63. Pulous FE, Cruz-Hernández JC, Yang C, et al. Cerebrospinal fluid can exit into the skull bone marrow and instruct cranial hematopoiesis in mice with bacterial meningitis. Nat Neurosci 2022;25(5):567–576. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64. Ruan J, Prasad P. The effects of skull thickness variations on human head dynamic impact responses. Stapp Car Crash J 2001;45:395–414. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65. Rowbotham SK, Mole CG, Tieppo D, et al. Average thickness of the bones of the human neurocranium: development of reference measurements to assist with blunt force trauma interpretations. Int J Legal Med 2023;137(1):195–213. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 66. Percival CJ, Devine J, Hassan CR, et al. The genetic basis of neurocranial size and shape across varied lab mouse populations. J Anat 2022;241(2):211–229. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 67. Richtsmeier JT, Flaherty K. Hand in glove: brain and skull in development and dysmorphogenesis. Acta Neuropathol 2013;125(4):469–489. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 68. Henderson JH, Chang LY, Song HM, et al. Age-dependent properties and quasi-static strain in the rat sagittal suture. J Biomech 2005;38(11):2294–2301. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 69. Lucey BP, March GP Jr, Hutchins GM. Marked calvarial thickening and dural changes following chronic ventricular shunting for shaken baby syndrome. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2003;127(1):94–97; doi: 10.5858/2003-127-94-MCTADC [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 70. Anderson R, Kieffer SA, Wolfson JJ, et al. Thickening of the skull in surgically treated hydrocephalus. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med 1970;110(1):96–101; doi: 10.2214/ajr.110.1.96 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 71. Di Preta JA, Powers JM, Hicks DG. Hyperostosis cranii ex vacuo: a rare complication of shunting for hydrocephalus. Hum Pathol 1994;25(5):545–547. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 72. Villani R, Giani SM, Giovanelli M, et al. Skull changes and intellectual status in hydrocephalic children following CSF shunting. Dev Med Child Neurol Suppl 1976(37):78–81. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 73. Ishii M, Sun J, Ting MC, et al. The development of the calvarial bones and sutures and the pathophysiology of craniosynostosis. Curr Top Dev Biol 2015;115:131–156; doi: 10.1016/bs.ctdb.2015.07.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 74. Iping R, Cohen AM, Abdel Alim T, et al. A bibliometric overview of craniosynostosis research development. Eur J Med Genet 2021;64(6):104224. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 75. Herring SW. Mechanical influences on suture development and patency. Front Oral Biol 2008;12:41–56; doi: 10.1159/0000115031 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 76. Delye H, Clijmans T, Mommaerts MY, et al. Creating a normative database of age-specific 3D geometrical data, bone density, and bone thickness of the developing skull: a pilot study. J Neurosurg Pediatr 2015;16(6):687–702. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 77. Lillie EM, Urban JE, Lynch SK, et al. Evaluation of skull cortical thickness changes with age and sex from computed tomography scans. J Bone Miner Res 2015;31(2):299–307; doi: 10.1002/jbmr.2613 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 78. Skrzat J, Brzegowy P, Walocha J, et al. Age dependent changes of the diploe in the human skull. Folia Morphol (Warsz) 2004;63(1):67–70. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 79. Calisan M, Talu MF, Pimenov DY, et al. Skull thickness calculation using thermal analysis and finite elements. Appl Sci 2021;11(21):10483; doi: 10.3390/app112110483 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 80. Torimitsu S, Nishida Y, Takano T, et al. Statistical analysis of biomechanical properties of the adult skull and age-related structural changes by sex in a Japanese forensic sample. Forensic Sci Int 2014;234:185.e1–e9; doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.10.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 81. Urban JE, Weaver AA, Lillie EM, et al. Evaluation of morphological changes in the adult skull with age and sex. J Anat 2016;229(6):838–846. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 82. Wei A, Wang J, Liu J, et al. A parametric head geometry model accounting for variation among adolescent and young adult populations. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2022;220:106805; doi: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2022.106805 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 83. Lynnerup N, Astrup JG, Sejrsen B. Thickness of the human cranial diploe in relation to age, sex and general body build. Head Face Med 2005;1:13; doi: 10.1186/1746-160X-1-13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 84. King NS. A systematic review of age and gender factors in prolonged post-concussion symptoms after mild head injury. Brain Inj 2014;28(13–14):1639–1645. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 85. Pham L, Wright DK, O'Brien WT, et al. Behavioral, axonal, and proteomic alterations following repeated mild traumatic brain injury: novel insights using a clinically relevant rat model. Neurobiol Dis 2021;148:105151; doi: 10.1016/j.nbd.2020.105151 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 86. Shultz SR, McDonald SJ, Vonder Haar C, et al. The potential for animal models to provide insight into mild traumatic brain injury: translational challenges and strategies. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2017;76(Pt B):396–414. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 87. Wu Q, Ma L, Liu Q, et al. Impact response and energy absorption of human skull cellular bones. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2018;81:106–119. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 88. Fijalkowski RJ, Stemper BD, Pintar FA, et al. New rat model for diffuse brain injury using coronal plane angular acceleration. J Neurotrauma 2007;24(8):1387–1398; doi: 10.1089/neu.2007.0268 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 89. Bayly PV, Alshareef A, Knutsen AK, et al. MR imaging of human brain mechanics in vivo: new measurements to facilitate the development of computational models of brain injury. Ann Biomed Eng 2021;49(10):2677–2692. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 90. Zhou Z, Li X, Kleiven S. Fluid-structure interaction simulation of the brain-skull interface for acute subdural haematoma prediction. Biomech Model Mechanobiol 2019;18(1):155–173. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 91. Lu L, Liu X, Bian K, et al. The effect of three-dimensional whole, major, and small vasculature on mouse brain strain under both diffuse and focal brain injury loading. J Biomech Eng 2022;144(8):084503; doi: 10.1115/1.4053664 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 92. Walsh DR, Ross AM, Newport DT, et al. Mechanical characterisation of the human dura mater, falx cerebri and superior sagittal sinus. Acta Biomater 2021;134:388–400; doi: 10.1016/j.actbio.2021.07.043 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 93. Post A, Oeur A, Hoshizaki B, et al. An examination of American football helmets using brain deformation metrics associated with concussion. Mater Des 2013;45:653–662; doi: 10.1016/j.matdes.2012.09.017 [DOI] [Google Scholar]