Multiple Continuous Y-to-V–Plasties for Excision and Reconstruction of Constriction Band Syndrome: Case Series and Description of Surgical Technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many patients with constriction band syndrome will seek treatment to improve limb function and cosmesis. Although several techniques for excision are reported, cosmetic and functional deficits can persist, including hourglass deformity, lymphedema, and inadequate band excision with resultant neurovascular compromise, which may lead to revision surgery, including amputation. The authors present a novel technique that uses multiple continuous opposing Y-to-V-plasties in a single or staged manner to correct extremity constriction bands. METHODS: Seven patients with 10 involved extremities were included in this retrospective case series. Patient demographics, associated abnormalities, and operative indications were collected from medical records. The primary outcome measures were primary wound healing and release of the constriction band. Secondary outcomes measures were perioperative complications and the need for revision surgery. RESULTS: All patients achieved primary closure with excellent healing in one or two stages. No infections or scar complications occurred, and no revision surgery of the band was required. One patient had mild indentation of scar tissue after their second stage, which improved with scar massage. One patient who had preoperative sciatic compression neuropathy and an insensate foot secondary to band constriction developed chronic calcaneal osteomyelitis requiring a subsequent Syme amputation. Postoperative lymphedema occurred in two patients, which resolved with the use of compression bandages over several weeks. CONCLUSION: Use of multiple continuous opposing Y-to-V-plasties is a safe and effective technique for adequate constriction band excision without residual hourglass deformity and good functional outcomes for patients with partial or circumferential constriction bands. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".