LAUSR

Background: In surgical specialties like orthopaedics, documenting the surgery performed involves applying the appropriate current procedural terminology (CPT) code(s). For limb reconstruction surgeons, the wide-ranging types of surgeries and rapid evolution of the field create a variety of factors making it difficult to code the procedures. We sought to (1) assess whether appropriate limb reconstruction codes currently exist and (2) determine whether there is agreement among experienced pediatric orthopaedic surgeons when applying these codes to similar cases. Methods: A REDCAP survey comprised of 10 common pediatric limb reconstruction cases was sent to experienced pediatric limb reconstruction surgeons in the United States. Based on the description of each case, the surgeons were asked to code the cases as they usually would in their practice. There were no limitations regarding the number or the types of codes each surgeon could choose to apply to the case. Nine additional demographic and general coding questions were asked to gauge the responding surgeon’s coding experience. Results: Survey participants used various codes for each case, ranging from only 1 code to a maximum of 9 codes to describe a single case. The average number of codes per case ranged from 1.2 to 3.6, with an average of 2.5 among all 10 cases. The total number of unique codes provided by the respondents for each case ranged from 5 to 20. Only 3 of the 10 cases had an agreement >75% for any single code, and only 2 of the 10 cases had >50% agreement on any combination of 2 codes. Conclusions: There are dramatic variations in coding methods among pediatric orthopaedic limb reconstruction surgeons. This information highlights the need to improve the current CPT coding landscape. Possible solutions include developing new codes that better represent the work done, developing standardized guidelines with the existing codes to decrease variation, and improving CPT coding education by developing limb reconstruction coding “champions.” Level of Evidence: Level V.