UNSPSC 85753202: Revision of synthetic substitute in epididymis and spermatic cord, percutaneous approach

This classification denotes the group of activities that yields a surgical intervention or procedure to revision of synthetic substitute in epididymis and spermatic cord, 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 0VWM3JZ

UNSPSC 85753202 Revision of synthetic substitute in epididymis and spermatic cord, percutaneous approach is a Commodity code with minimal alignment to recent state and local procurement activity. The code's nominal scope — a specific urological surgical procedure — does not match the opportunities the source identifies under this classification. The recent state and local solicitations tagged with this code actually procure independent medical evaluation services, occupational medical surveillance, specialty surgical and medical procedure management through Centers of Excellence, pharmacy benefit management, emergency and specialty healthcare for detained youth, and temporary health professional staffing. None of these represent revision of synthetic substitutes in the epididymis or spermatic cord. The mismatch suggests either systematic misclassification of opportunities in the source data or a fundamental disconnect between the code's procedure-specific definition and how state and local procurement offices are using it in practice.

The issuing bodies in the recent-opportunities block include city retirement offices (City of Phoenix), municipal human resources and benefits divisions (City of Long Beach), state transportation departments (Washington State Department of Transportation), county probation services (Harris County Juvenile Probation Department), county human resources and health services consortia (Collier County, County of Santa Clara Health System), and county-level health systems. Geographic spread covers Arizona, California, Washington, Texas, and Florida. Without concrete evidence that the code is being used to procure actual urological surgical revision procedures, business development professionals should treat this code as misaligned with current state and local demand and verify upstream whether the classification error lies in the procurement data or in the code definition itself.