Comparing Relative Value Units for Intramedullary Limb Lengthening Procedures to Common Pediatric Orthopaedic Surgeries to Determine Adequate Compensation

Abstract

Objective: Reimbursement for surgical procedures is determined by a computation of the relative value unit (RVU) associated with CPT codes. It is based on the amount of work required to provide a service, resources available, and level of expertise involved. Given the evolution of changes in the limb lengthening field, we wanted to evaluate whether the RVU values were comparable across different orthopaedic subspecialties. Consequently, this study compares the work relative value unit (wRVU) totals of 3 common pediatric orthopaedic surgeries—arthroscopic ACL reconstruction, spinal fusion for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, and antegrade femoral intramedullary limb lengthening. Methods: This was an IRB-approved, multicenter, retrospective chart review. Charts of subjects who had ACL reconstructions, including meniscal repairs; spinal fusion surgeries for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (7 to 12 levels), including Ponte osteotomies, and femoral antegrade internal limb lengthening procedures, each completed by fellowship-trained orthopaedic surgeons were reviewed. Comparisons were carried out between several parameters, including mean duration per procedure, number of CPT codes billed per procedure, number of postoperative visits in the 90-day global period, and the wRVU for each procedure. Results: Fifty charts (25 per center) per procedure were reviewed. The wRVU per hour was lowest in the antegrade femur lengthening group (P < 0.0001). The number of postoperative visits in the 90-day global postsurgery period was significantly higher in the antegrade femur lengthening group (P < 0.0001). Intramedullary limb lengthening also had the least number of CPT codes billed. Conclusions: RVUs per time are statistically lowest in the limb lengthening group and highest in the scoliosis group. The limb lengthening patient also requires significantly more visits and time in the postoperative period compared with the other groups. These extra visits during the global period do not add any RVU value to the lengthening surgeon and occupy clinic spots that could be filled with new patients. Based on these data, a review of the RVU values assigned to the limb lengthening codes may be necessary. Level of Evidence: Level III—retrospective comparison study.