Inner Cranial Bones Laxity .... is it possible ?



F

Fergal

Guest
Is it possibly to have a laxity of the inner cranial bones such as the sphenoid ?

Somehow I get the impression the person would be dead if it happened but I talked to somehow
recently who suggested otherwise.

ferg
 
M

Mxsmanic

Guest
fergal writes:

> Is it possibly to have a laxity of the inner cranial bones such as the sphenoid ?

Laxity in what sense? The sphenoid starts out as cartilage; it doesn't have to be concrete.

> Somehow I get the impression the person would be dead if it happened but I talked to somehow
> recently who suggested otherwise.

If things were that delicate, nobody would survive brain surgery, because the portion of the skull
removed to access the brain is loose immediately after surgery, until it heals into place again. And
in babies the bones aren't even fused into a solid skull yet, but babies survive just the same.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 
F

Fergal

Guest
Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> fergal writes:
>
> > Is it possibly to have a laxity of the inner cranial bones such as the sphenoid ?
>
> Laxity in what sense? The sphenoid starts out as cartilage; it doesn't have to be concrete.

yes, but I don't mean the bones itself but the tissue the bones are attached to
i.e. the ligament attachments from the sphenoid that help support the dura
>
> > Somehow I get the impression the person would be dead if it happened but I talked to somehow
> > recently who suggested otherwise.
>
> If things were that delicate, nobody would survive brain surgery, because the portion of the
> skull removed to access the brain is loose immediately after surgery, until it heals into place
> again. And in babies the bones aren't even fused into a solid skull yet, but babies survive just
> the same.

that would depend on which portion of the skull it was, wouldn't it ?

thanks for repyling

ferg
 
M

Mxsmanic

Guest
fergal writes:

> yes, but I don't mean the bones itself but the tissue the bones are attached to
> i.e. the ligament attachments from the sphenoid that help support the dura

What's the exact defect or injury we are talking about here? A free-floating sphenoid bone?

Anyway, in the absence of mechanical stress (blows or other rapid accelerations), it may not
matter, just as fractures in some other bones and parts of the body may not even be obvious
unless mechanical stress is applied, because their natural tendency is to remain in the correct
position, anyway.

> that would depend on which portion of the skull it was, wouldn't it ?

I suppose there are portions of the skull that might tend to come apart if fractured, although
nothing springs to mind. A bone that is not firmly attached to its neighboring skeletal structure in
the usual way but is nevertheless maintained in its place by soft tissue and/or natural forces (no
gravity or other stress pushing it out of place) would not necessarily be the kiss of death. So
cracking the skull in two halves would be dangerous because mechanical forces would tend to open the
skull, but removing a small square for surgery and then replacing it isn't necessarily a problem as
long as nothing applies stress directly to the separated section until it heals again.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 
F

Fergal

Guest
Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> fergal writes:
>
> > yes, but I don't mean the bones itself but the tissue the bones are attached to
> > i.e. the ligament attachments from the sphenoid that help support the dura
>
> What's the exact defect or injury we are talking about here? A free-floating sphenoid bone?
>
possibly yes but also the ligamentous attachments throughout the cranial vault

> Anyway, in the absence of mechanical stress (blows or other rapid accelerations), it may not
> matter, just as fractures in some other bones and parts of the body may not even be obvious
> unless mechanical stress is applied, because their natural tendency is to remain in the correct
> position, anyway.

> > that would depend on which portion of the skull it was, wouldn't it ?
>
> I suppose there are portions of the skull that might tend to come apart if fractured, although
> nothing springs to mind. A bone that is not firmly attached to its neighboring skeletal structure
> in the usual way but is nevertheless maintained in its place by soft tissue and/or natural forces
> (no gravity or other stress pushing it out of place) would not necessarily be the kiss of death.
> So cracking the skull in two halves would be dangerous because mechanical forces would tend to
> open the skull, but removing a small square for surgery and then replacing it isn't necessarily a
> problem as long as nothing applies stress directly to the separated section until it heals again.