Anthony Fadel, Boyd R Viers, J Nick Warner, Katherine T Anderson
{"title":"Acquired buried penis: an observational study characterizing the variability in procedural codes reported during surgery.","authors":"Anthony Fadel, Boyd R Viers, J Nick Warner, Katherine T Anderson","doi":"10.21037/tau-24-350","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Adult acquired buried penis (ABP) is a heterogenous condition and surgical treatment typically includes several steps. Additionally, there is no consensus on which current procedural terminology (CPT) codes to utilize for these steps. Our objective is to characterize the variability in CPT codes reported for ABP surgeries. We hypothesize that the heterogeneous disease process combined with a lack of consensus on appropriate CPT codes will result in marked variability in CPT codes reported during surgery for ABP.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data was collected from American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) between 2007-2020. We included adults undergoing surgery for ABP. All CPT codes were grouped into different anatomic categories: penile procedures, scrotal procedures, pannus-related procedures, urethral procedures, tissue transfers, and skin grafts. Codes not fitting these categories were labeled \"Other\".</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our study included 146 patients. There were 413 total CPT codes reported with 82 unique codes in our cohort. The average number of codes per patient was 2.8, with a range from 1 to 9. There were many unique codes in each anatomic category: 18 different codes within penile procedures, 7 within pannus procedures, 8 within skin grafting, 4 within scrotal procedures, 7 within tissue transfers, and 19 within urethral. There was marked variability in individual code use with each code being reported anywhere from 1 to 58 times. Urologists were the primary surgeons in 69% (n=101).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We found marked variability in CPT codes reported during surgery for ABP. This suggests the need for our stakeholder organizations to support efforts that would allow consensus on which codes should be utilized for this increasingly recognized condition.</p>","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11535738/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21037/tau-24-350","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Adult acquired buried penis (ABP) is a heterogenous condition and surgical treatment typically includes several steps. Additionally, there is no consensus on which current procedural terminology (CPT) codes to utilize for these steps. Our objective is to characterize the variability in CPT codes reported for ABP surgeries. We hypothesize that the heterogeneous disease process combined with a lack of consensus on appropriate CPT codes will result in marked variability in CPT codes reported during surgery for ABP.
Methods: Data was collected from American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) between 2007-2020. We included adults undergoing surgery for ABP. All CPT codes were grouped into different anatomic categories: penile procedures, scrotal procedures, pannus-related procedures, urethral procedures, tissue transfers, and skin grafts. Codes not fitting these categories were labeled "Other".
Results: Our study included 146 patients. There were 413 total CPT codes reported with 82 unique codes in our cohort. The average number of codes per patient was 2.8, with a range from 1 to 9. There were many unique codes in each anatomic category: 18 different codes within penile procedures, 7 within pannus procedures, 8 within skin grafting, 4 within scrotal procedures, 7 within tissue transfers, and 19 within urethral. There was marked variability in individual code use with each code being reported anywhere from 1 to 58 times. Urologists were the primary surgeons in 69% (n=101).
Conclusions: We found marked variability in CPT codes reported during surgery for ABP. This suggests the need for our stakeholder organizations to support efforts that would allow consensus on which codes should be utilized for this increasingly recognized condition.
期刊介绍:
Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance.
Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.