4.6 Review

Cerebrospinal Fluid Cavitation as a Mechanism of Blast-Induced Traumatic Brain Injury: A Review of Current Debates, Methods, and Findings

期刊

FRONTIERS IN NEUROLOGY
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2021.626393

关键词

cavitation; BTBI; cerebrospinal fluid; blastinjury; injury-head trauma

资金

  1. Roy J. Carver Charitable Trust [18-5021]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review discusses the potential role of cavitation in blast-induced traumatic brain injury, covering debates on bubble formation within the brain, mechanisms of damage, and various models used in research. While fundamental questions about the viability of CSF cavitation during blast remain, further research is necessary to evaluate its likelihood and impact. The review also assesses common assumptions in cavitation research and highlights important outstanding questions for future work.
Cavitation has gained popularity in recent years as a potential mechanism of blast-induced traumatic brain injury (bTBI). This review presents the most prominent debates on cavitation; how bubbles can form or exist within the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and brain vasculature, potential mechanisms of cellular, and tissue level damage following the collapse of bubbles in response to local pressure fluctuations, and a survey of experimental and computational models used to address cavitation research questions. Due to the broad and varied nature of cavitation research, this review attempts to provide a necessary synthesis of cavitation findings relevant to bTBI, and identifies key areas where additional work is required. Fundamental questions about the viability and likelihood of CSF cavitation during blast remain, despite a variety of research regarding potential injury pathways. Much of the existing literature on bTBI evaluates cavitation based off its prima facie plausibility, while more rigorous evaluation of its likelihood becomes increasingly necessary. This review assesses the validity of some of the common assumptions in cavitation research, as well as highlighting outstanding questions that are essential in future work.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据