Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40352049›Full record

ArticleCureus2025

Coding Patterns and Implications for Reimbursement in Foot-and-Ankle Surgery.

Ryan G Rogero, Carson M Rider, Benjamin J Grear, David R Richardson, Garnett A Murphy, Clayton C Bettin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Ryan G RogeroOrthopaedic Surgery and Biomedical Engineering, University of Tennessee Health Science Center-Campbell Clinic, Memphis, USA.
Carson M RiderOrthopaedic Surgery and Biomedical Engineering, University of Tennessee Health Science Center-Campbell Clinic, Memphis, USA.
Benjamin J GrearOrthopaedic Surgery and Biomedical Engineering, University of Tennessee Health Science Center-Campbell Clinic, Memphis, USA.
David R RichardsonOrthopaedic Surgery and Biomedical Engineering, University of Tennessee Health Science Center-Campbell Clinic, Memphis, USA.
Garnett A MurphyOrthopaedic Surgery and Biomedical Engineering, University of Tennessee Health Science Center-Campbell Clinic, Memphis, USA.
Clayton C BettinOrthopaedic Surgery and Biomedical Engineering, University of Tennessee Health Science Center-Campbell Clinic, Memphis, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionCoding is an essential part of a foot-and-ankle surgeon's responsibility and can quantify the amount of work done by the surgeon and influence compensation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the coding patterns and variation among foot-and-ankle orthopedic surgeons and to quantify the potential effects of these on reimbursement using real-life patient cases. Our hypothesis was that there would be large variability between the coding of common foot-and-ankle cases between surgeons, with subsequent effects on reimbursement values.

methodsA survey consisting of 12 patient cases was administered to all foot-and-ankle, fellowship-trained orthopedic surgeons of a large, combined academic-private practice group. The scenarios included pre-operative diagnostic imaging and reports, intra-operative imaging, and post-operative radiographs. Surgeons were asked which Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes would be applied and if any modifiers to these codes would be used. Total work-relative value units (RVUs) and the generated reimbursement values were calculated for each case and respondent using the 2024 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services conversion factor ($32.74 per RVU), with the primary procedure reimbursed at 100% and additional procedures reimbursed at 50%.

resultsFive surgeons completed the survey. Among case scenarios, wide variability in CPT coding was demonstrated, with only 33.3% (four out of 12) of cases having at least four of the five respondents in agreement on the primary CPT code, whereas only one case had 100% agreement. Similarly, only 41.7% (five out of 12) of cases had at least four of the five respondents in agreement regarding modifier usage, with only one case having 100% agreement. The total RVU and reimbursement difference between the respondents with the highest and lowest listed RVUs was 216.06 and $3,627.92, respectively.

conclusionLarge variability exists between foot-and-ankle surgeons when coding common procedures, particularly those involving the midfoot. Surgeons should be aware of these differences and the large effect they can have on quantifying work and reimbursement. Increasing competency with coding and billing should continue to be emphasized in all medical specialties.

Indexed as

current procedural terminologymedical billingmedical codingpractice managementreimbursementsurgeon education

Identifiers

PMID40352049
PMCPMC12063514

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.