$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
Cranial windows have become ubiquitously used throughout the fields of neuroscience, neural engineering, and biology to allow for direct visualization and imaging of the cortex in living animals1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11. The powerful combination of transgenic mice and multiphoton imaging has provided extremely valuable insights into circuit activity and other biological insights in the in vivo brain12,13,14,15,16,17,18. Miniature microscopes mounted on the skull have further extended these capabilities to enable recordings in awake, freely moving animals19. The process of creating a cranial window requires power-drilling to thin or completely remove the cranial bone to produce large enough craniotomies to secure a transparent piece of glass over the cortex20. Polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) and other polymers have also been tested as cranial window materials9,21. Ultimately, the ideal cranial window is one that does not alter or interfere with normal endogenous activity underneath. However, it is commonly accepted that cranial window drilling aggravates underlying tissue, leading to damage to the brain, disruption of the environment, and effecting meninges to the point of occluding multiphoton imaging depth22. The resulting neuroinflammation has a wide array of effects ranging from permeability of the blood-brain barrier (BBB), to activation and recruitment of glial cells around the implant site23. Therefore, characterizing safer and more reproducible cranial window drilling methods is crucial for consistent imaging quality and reducing confounding factors.
While care is taken to minimize trauma to the underlying tissue, the act of drilling the bone has the potential to cause both thermal and mechanical perturbations to the brain24,25. Mechanical trauma from accidental drill penetration into the dura may further induce varying degrees of cortical injury24. In a study by Shoffstall et al.25, the heat from bone-drilling resulted in an increased BBB permeability, as indicated by the presence of Evans Blue (EB) dye in the brain parenchyma25. EB dye, injected intravenously, binds to circulating albumin in the bloodstream and therefore does not normally cross a healthy BBB in appreciable concentrations. As a result, EB dye is commonly used as a sensitive marker of BBB permeability26,27. While their study did not directly measure the impact of the BBB permeability on subsequent biological sequelae under study, prior studies have correlated BBB permeability to an increased neuroinflammatory response to chronically implanted microelectrodes and alterations in motor function28.
Depending on the goals of the study, the magnitude of thermal and mechanical damage may contribute a source of experimental error, negatively affecting the rigor and reproducibility of the study. There are dozens of cited methods for producing cranial windows, each using different drilling equipment, speeds, techniques, and users1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11. Shoffstall et al.25 reported that the observed variation in the heating outcomes was attributed to variability in the drill's applied force, feed rate, and angle of application, among other aspects that cannot be controlled for when drilling by hand25. There is a belief that automated drilling systems and other stereotaxic equipment can improve reproducibility and outcome consistency, but published method studies have not rigorously evaluated temperature or BBB permeability as one of the outcomes. Therefore, there is a need for more reproducible and consistently applied methods to produce cranial windows, as well as methods rigorously applied to assess the impact of cranial window drilling on underlying neural tissue.
The focus of this study is to determine and develop consistent and safe drilling methods for cranial windows. The size of the craniotomy for cranial window installation is significantly larger than standard craniotomies for brain implanted microelectrodes. Such craniotomies cannot be completed with a single burr hole when using standard equipment, thereby introducing more inter-surgeon technique variability when performed by hand20. Surgical drilling robots have been introduced to the field, but have not been widely adopted1,6,29. Automation of drilling offers control over variables contributing to observed trial-to-trial variation, suggesting that use of the equipment can reduce inter- and intra-surgeon effects. This is of particular interest given the added difficulty of the larger craniotomy needed for cranial window placement. While one could assume there to be clear benefits to the control provided by automating the drilling, there has been little assessment of the implementation of these equipment. Although visible lesions have not been observed5, the higher sensitivity test using EB is desired.
Here, BBB permeability is measured using a commercially available surgical drilling robot with corresponding software, which allows for programming of stereotaxic coordinates, craniotomy planning/mapping, and a selection of drilling styles ("point-by-point" vs "horizontal"), referring to the routed path of the drill bit. Initially, eight "seed" points are drilled (Figure 1A), outlining the cranial window. From here, the space in between the seeds is cut out using either the "point-by-point" or "horizontal" drill method. "Point-by-point" performs vertical pilot hole cuts (similar to a CNC drill press), while "horizontal" performs horizontal cuts along the circumference of the cranial window that outline the hole (similar to a CNC router). The result for both methods are a piece of skull that can be removed to reveal the cranial window. To isolate damage from drilling, the cranial window is not physically removed, so as to avoid any additional damage. A combination of EB dye coupled with fluorescent imaging is used to measure BBB permeability after performing craniotomies in mice, and an inserted thermocouple is used to directly measure temperature of the brain surface during drilling (Figure 1B,C). Previous observations indicated that pulsed drilling on/off with 2 s intervals was sufficient to mitigate drill heating25, and therefore is incorporated into the experimental approach for the surgical robot.
The intent of the presented work is to demonstrate methods of assessing thermal damage from craniotomy drilling. While the methods are presented in the context of automated drilling, such methods can be applied to manual drilling schemes as well. These methods can be used to validate the use of equipment and/or drilling schemes before adopting as a standard procedure.

Figure 1: Experimental pipeline schematic. Schematic demonstrating the process animals underwent for EB quantification post-cranial window procedure. (A) Schematic setup of the mouse with the stereotaxic frame and surgical robot drill. An example cranial window is shown over the motor cortex with seed points (green) and edge points (blue). (B) The perfusion setup includes injecting 1x Phosphate Buffered Saline (PBS) throughout the animal to remove any blood, followed by extraction of the brain. (C) The brain is then put into the EB fluorescent imaging system chamber to conduct fluorescent imaging on the Evans Blue dye. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.