Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 6, 2026

09:26
Quantification of Orofacial Phenotypes in Xenopus
Published on: November 6, 2014
10.2K
Analyzing Variation in Fronto-Orbital Advancement Coding: Insights From 2569 Cases
Adam B Fleming1, Ashlie A Elver1, Nancy K Perry2
1Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Mississippi Medical Center.
The Journal of Craniofacial Surgery
|October 29, 2025
Summary
Billing for temporalis muscle flaps during fronto-orbital advancement (FOA) varies significantly. Nearly a quarter of FOA cases included separate flap billing codes, indicating inconsistent practices in craniofacial surgery billing.
Area of Science:
- Craniofacial Surgery
- Health Services Research
- Surgical Billing
Background:
- Fronto-orbital advancement (FOA) is a surgical procedure often involving temporalis muscle dissection.
- National billing practices for the use of temporalis muscle flaps in FOA are not well characterized.
- Variations in billing can impact reimbursement and transparency in pediatric craniofacial surgery.
Purpose of the Study:
- To analyze national billing patterns for temporalis muscle flaps in pediatric fronto-orbital advancement (FOA).
- To identify factors associated with the use of separate billing codes for temporalis muscle flaps during FOA.
- To assess the implications of billing variations on surgical practice and reimbursement.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective cohort analysis of deidentified data from the Pediatric National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (PNSQIP), 2016-2021.
- Identification of FOA cases using CPT code 21175.
- Categorization of cases based on the presence or absence of temporalis muscle flap CPT codes (15732/15733).
- Comparison of perioperative variables including operative time, anesthesia time, length of stay, and primary surgical specialty.
Main Results:
- Of 2569 FOA cases, 601 (23.4%) included additional temporalis muscle flap codes.
- Cases with flap codes had significantly longer operative times (254 vs. 240.6 min) and anesthesia times (369.2 vs. 353.3 min).
- Length of stay did not differ significantly between groups (P = 0.077).
- Plastic surgery was the primary specialty in most FOAs (57.2%) and was more likely to use flap codes compared to otolaryngology (24.6% vs. 9.6%).
Conclusions:
- A significant proportion of fronto-orbital advancement procedures are billed with separate codes for temporalis muscle flaps, despite dissection being inherent.
- This billing variation likely reflects differing interpretations of coding guidelines rather than surgical technique.
- Standardized coding guidelines are needed to ensure transparency and equitable reimbursement in craniofacial surgery.

