ArticleTranslational andrology and urology2024
Acquired buried penis: an observational study characterizing the variability in procedural codes reported during surgery.
Article in Translational andrology and urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.