UNSPSC 85671223: Division of left abdomen bursa and ligament, percutaneous approach

This classification denotes the group of activities that yields a surgical intervention or procedure to division of left abdomen bursa and ligament, percutaneous approach. This surgical intervention or procedure is listed in the World Health Organization's International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems or ICD-10 as code 0M8J3ZZ

UNSPSC 85671223 Division of left abdomen bursa and ligament, percutaneous approach is a Commodity code that shows little relevant recent activity under state and local procurement. The code's nominal scope—a surgical procedure code—bears no meaningful match to the actual work state and local agencies are buying under this designation. Recent opportunities tagged to this code encompass occupational medical surveillance, pharmacy benefit management, independent disability medical evaluations, temporary health professional staffing, specialty and emergency medical services for youth in custody, and surgical benefit carve-out programs. None of these activities involve the abdominal surgical procedure the code nominally describes. The issuing bodies span state departments (Washington State Department of Transportation), counties (Collier County, Harris County, Santa Clara County), and cities (Phoenix, Long Beach), reflecting the typical diversity of state and local health and benefits procurement.

The geographic spread of the six recent opportunities includes Arizona, California, Florida, Texas, and Washington, with no clear concentration in any single state. The Washington State Department of Transportation's occupational medical surveillance solicitation (RFP 20260825, due October 9, 2026) and the City of Phoenix Retirement Office's independent medical evaluation services RFP (RTMRFP26001, due October 16, 2026) represent the most operationally specific recent postings under this code, yet neither aligns with the abdominal surgery procedure the UNSPSC code nominally identifies. The mismatch suggests either systematic miscoding by issuing offices or a data-quality issue in the source. For business development purposes, this code should be treated as demonstrating no reliable market signal for the work its name describes.