DOCSLIB.ORG

Kyphoplasty/Vertebroplasty, Thoracic Spine

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Kyphoplasty/Vertebroplasty, Thoracic Spine Musculoskeletal Surgical Services: Spine Fusion/Stabilization Surgery; Kyphoplasty/Vertebroplasty, Thoracic Spine POLICY INITIATED: 06/30/2019 MOST RECENT REVIEW: 06/30/2019 POLICY # HH-5641 Overview Statement The purpose of these clinical guidelines is to assist healthcare professionals in selecting the medical service that may be appropriate and supported by evidence to improve patient outcomes. These clinical guidelines neither preempt clinical judgment of trained professionals nor advise anyone on how to practice medicine. The healthcare professionals are responsible for all clinical decisions based on their assessment. These clinical guidelines do not provide authorization, certification, explanation of benefits, or guarantee of payment, nor do they substitute for, or constitute, medical advice. Federal and State law, as well as member benefit contract language, including definitions and specific contract provisions/exclusions, take precedence over clinical guidelines and must be considered first when determining eligibility for coverage. All final determinations on coverage and payment are the responsibility of the health plan. Nothing contained within this document can be interpreted to mean otherwise. Medical information is constantly evolving, and HealthHelp reserves the right to review and update these clinical guidelines periodically. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise, without permission from HealthHelp. All trademarks, product names, logos, and brand names are the property of their respective owners and are used for purposes of information/illustration only. Associated Procedure Codes: Procedure Code Description Code Osteotomy of spine, posterior or posterolateral approach, 3 columns, 1 vertebral 22206 segment (eg, pedicle/vertebral body subtraction); thoracic Osteotomy of spine, posterior or posterolateral approach, 1 vertebral segment; 22212 thoracic Osteotomy of spine, including discectomy, anterior approach, single vertebral 22222 segment; thoracic Percutaneous vertebral augmentation, including cavity creation (fracture reduction 22513 and bone biopsy included when performed) using mechanical device (eg, kyphoplasty), 1 vertebral body, unilateral or bilateral cannulation, inclusive of all imaging guidance; thoracic Clinical Guidelines for Medical Necessity Review of Musculoskeletal Surgical Services. http://www.healthhelp.com | © 2019 HealthHelp. All rights reserved. 16945 Northchase Dr #1300, Houston, TX 77060 (281) 447‐7000 Arthrodesis, lateral extracavitary technique, including minimal discectomy to prepare 22532 interspace (other than for decompression); thoracic Arthrodesis, anterior interbody technique, including minimal discectomy to prepare 22556 interspace (other than for decompression); thoracic Arthrodesis, posterior or posterolateral technique, single level; thoracic (with lateral 22610 transverse technique, when performed) Arthrodesis, posterior, for spinal deformity, with or without cast; up to 6 vertebral 22800 segments Arthrodesis, posterior, for spinal deformity, with or without cast; 7 to 12 vertebral 22802 segments Arthrodesis, posterior, for spinal deformity, with or without cast; 13 or more vertebral 22804 segments Arthrodesis, anterior, for spinal deformity, with or without cast; 2 to 3 vertebral 22808 segments Arthrodesis, anterior, for spinal deformity, with or without cast; 4 to 7 vertebral 22810 segments Arthrodesis, anterior, for spinal deformity, with or without cast; 8 or more vertebral 22812 segments Kyphectomy, circumferential exposure of spine and resection of vertebral segment(s) 22818 (including body and posterior elements); single or 2 segments Kyphectomy, circumferential exposure of spine and resection of vertebral segment(s) 22819 (including body and posterior elements); 3 or more segments Reinsertion of spinal fixation device 22849 Removal of posterior nonsegmental instrumentation (eg, Harrington rod) 22850 Removal of posterior segmental instrumentation 22852 Removal of anterior instrumentation 22855 Removal of posterior nonsegmental instrumentation (eg, Harrington rod) 22850 Removal of posterior segmental instrumentation 22852 Removal of anterior instrumentation 22855 Definition: 1. A vertebroplasty is a minimally-invasive technique that can be used to treat both lumbar and thoracic compression fractures. Like a cast for a broken bone, a vertebroplasty will immediately stabilize the fracture, relieve pain and prevent the formation of a deformity. A kyphoplasty is a similar procedure designed to stabilize compression fractures. It’s sometimes called a balloon vertebroplasty, because it involves inflating the fracture with a balloon. Clinical Guidelines for Medical Necessity Review of Musculoskeletal Surgical Services. http://www.healthhelp.com | © 2019 HealthHelp. All rights reserved. 16945 Northchase Dr #1300, Houston, TX 77060 (281) 447‐7000 Guideline: . The use of thoracic kyphoplasty or vertebroplasty may be appropriate and supported by evidence to improve outcomes for patients when the patient’s medical record demonstrates the following: o Persistent thoracic pain and/or deformity; and EITHER of the following: (1) Treatment plan consists of treatment to 2 or less vertebrae; and ANY of the following: □ Hemangiomas in the thoracic spine and radiation therapy not effective at relieving pain; (2, 10) □ History of metastatic disease to the spine or myeloma and neither radiation therapy nor chemotherapy has been effective in relieving pain; (1, 10) □ CT or MRI confirm osteoporotic or pathologic fracture; and BOTH of the following: (3,4,5,6,7,8,9) Patient has had a trial of bracing for at least eight (8) weeks; (3,4,5,7,9) At least eight (8) weeks of analgesic or anti-inflammatory medications or patient has a documented contraindication to analgesic or anti-inflammatory medications. (3,4,5,6,7) Clinical Guidelines for Medical Necessity Review of Musculoskeletal Surgical Services. http://www.healthhelp.com | © 2019 HealthHelp. All rights reserved. 16945 Northchase Dr #1300, Houston, TX 77060 (281) 447‐7000 References 1. Carragee EJ, et al. (2008). Treatment of neck pain. Injections and surgical interventions: Results of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders. Spine, 33(4S): S153-S169. 2. Trends in the Treatment of Single and Multilevel Cervical Stenosis, Alfredo Arrojas - J. Jackson - Gregory Grabowski - The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery – 2017 3. Surgical versus non-surgical treatment for lumbar spinal stenosis, Fabio Zaina - Christy Tomkins-Lane - Eugene Carragee - Stefano Negrini - Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews – 2012 4. Spinal fusion in the United States: analysis of trends from 1998 to 2008. Rajaee SS, Bae HW, Kanim LE, Delamarter RB. Spine 2012;37(1):67–76. The Spine Journal – 2012 5. Utilization of Lumbar Spinal Fusion in New York State Jeffrey Jancuska - Lorraine Hutzler - Themistocles Protopsaltis - John Bendo - Joseph Bosco - Spine – 2016 6. Vertebroplasty and Kyphoplasty: National Outcomes and Trends in Utilization from 2005 Through 2010 Vadim Goz - Thomas Errico - Jeffrey Weinreb - Steven Koehler - Andrew Hecht - Virginie Lafage - Sheeraz Qureshi - The Spine Journal – 2013 7. Comparative analysis of clinical outcomes in patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs): conservative treatment versus balloon kyphoplasty, Hwan Lee - Si Park - Soon Lee - Seung Suh - Jae Hong - The Spine Journal – 2012 8. Peer review report 2 on “Percutaneous Vertebroplasty Versus Conservative Treatment for Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures: An Updated Meta-analysis of Prospective Randomized Controlled Trials” International Journal of Surgery – 2017 9. Comparison of spinal fusion and nonoperative treatment in patients with chronic low back pain: long-term follow-up of three randomized controlled trials. Anne Mannion - Jens Brox - Jeremy Fairbank - The Spine Journal – 2013 10. Milliman Report. 11. Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE): Quality-assessed Reviews [Internet]. York (UK): Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (UK); 1995-. Surgery versus conservative treatment for symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. 2011. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK82899/ 12. https://www.nuvopainmanagement.com/procedures/kyphoplasty-vertebroplasty/ Clinical Guidelines for Medical Necessity Review of Musculoskeletal Surgical Services. http://www.healthhelp.com | © 2019 HealthHelp. All rights reserved. 16945 Northchase Dr #1300, Houston, TX 77060 (281) 447‐7000 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Volume 15, Issue 1, January-April
    Volume 15, Issue 1, January-April Osteochondral lesions of the talus in adults J. Batista, G. Joannas, L. Casola, L. Logioco, G. Arrondo 1A Traumatic lesion with isolated cartilage injury (flap) Tx: arthroscopy, curettage, and microfractures. 1B Traumatic lesion (cartilage and subchondral bone injury) 1B.1 Lesion <10mm in diameter and <5mm of depth (superficial lesion) Tx: arthroscopy, curettage, and microfractures. 1B.2 Lesion >10mm in diameter and >5mm in depth Tx: fragment fixation with osteosynthesis, open surgery, osteochondral graft, or mosaicoplasty. 2A Non-traumatic isolated bone injury, subchondral cyst. Tx: retrograde drilling. 2B Non-traumatic open subchondral bone cyst with articular connection (progression of type 2A). 2B.1 Lesion measuring <10mm in diameter and <5mm in depth (superficial lesion). Tx: arthroscopy, curettage, and microfractures. 2B.2 Lesion measuring >10mm in diameter and >5mm in depth. Tx: open surgery, osteochondral graft, or mosaicoplasty. 3 Type 1 or 2 lesions associated with lateral instability of the ankle Tx: ligament repair. 4 With limb deformities 4A Types 1 or 2 lesions with hindfoot deformity = varus or valgus calcaneus Tx: varus or valgus calcaneal osteotomy. 4B Type 1 or 2 lesion with supramalleolar deformity of distal tibia (varus or valgus) Tx: varus or valgus supramalleolar osteotomy. Tx: treatment. Volume 15, Issue 1, January-April The Journal of the Foot & Ankle (eISSN 2675-2980) is published quarterly in April, August, and December, with the purpose of disseminating papers on themes of Foot and Ankle Medicine and Surgery and related areas. The Journal offers free and open access to your content on our website. All papers are already published with active DOIs.
    [Show full text]
  • Subchondral Bone Regenerative Effect of Two Different Biomaterials in the Same Patient
    Hindawi Publishing Corporation Case Reports in Orthopedics Volume 2013, Article ID 850502, 5 pages http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/850502 Case Report Subchondral Bone Regenerative Effect of Two Different Biomaterials in the Same Patient Marco Cavallo,1 Roberto Buda,2 Francesca Vannini,1 Francesco Castagnini,1 Alberto Ruffilli,1 and Sandro Giannini2 1 IClinic,RizzoliOrthopaedicInstitute,BolognaUniversity,ViaGiulioCesarePupilli1,40136Bologna,Italy 2 Orthopaedics and Traumatology, I Clinic, Rizzoli Orthopaedic Institute, Bologna University, Via Giulio Cesare Pupilli 1, 40136Bologna,Italy Correspondence should be addressed to Marco Cavallo; [email protected] Received 2 May 2013; Accepted 17 June 2013 Academic Editors: E. R. Ahlmann, M. Cadossi, and A. Sakamoto Copyright © 2013 Marco Cavallo et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. This case report aims at highlighting the different effects on subchondral bone regeneration of two different biomaterials inthe same patient, in addition to bone marrow derived cell transplantation (BMDCT) in ankle. A 15-year-old boy underwent a first BMDCT on a hyaluronate membrane to treat a deep osteochondral lesion (8 mm). The procedure failed: subchondral bone was still present at MRI. Two years after the first operation, the same procedure was performed on a collagen membrane with DBM filling the defect. After one year, AOFAS score was 100 points, and MRI showed a complete filling of the defect. The T2 mapping MRI after one year showed chondral tissue with values in the range of hyaline cartilage.
    [Show full text]
  • Anterior Reconstruction Techniques for Cervical Spine Deformity
    Neurospine 2020;17(3):534-542. Neurospine https://doi.org/10.14245/ns.2040380.190 pISSN 2586-6583 eISSN 2586-6591 Review Article Anterior Reconstruction Techniques Corresponding Author for Cervical Spine Deformity Samuel K. Cho 1,2 1 1 1 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7511-2486 Murray Echt , Christopher Mikhail , Steven J. Girdler , Samuel K. Cho 1Department of Orthopedics, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA Department of Orthopaedics, Icahn 2 Department of Neurological Surgery, Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, 425 NY, USA West 59th Street, 5th Floor, New York, NY, USA E-mail: [email protected] Cervical spine deformity is an uncommon yet severely debilitating condition marked by its heterogeneity. Anterior reconstruction techniques represent a familiar approach with a range Received: June 24, 2020 of invasiveness and correction potential—including global or focal realignment in the sagit- Revised: August 5, 2020 tal and coronal planes. Meticulous preoperative planning is required to improve or prevent Accepted: August 17, 2020 neurologic deterioration and obtain satisfactory global spinal harmony. The ability to per- form anterior only reconstruction requires mobility of the opposite column to achieve cor- rection, unless a combined approach is planned. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion has limited focal correction, but when applied over multiple levels there is a cumulative ef- fect with a correction of approximately 6° per level. Partial or complete corpectomy has the ability to correct sagittal deformity as well as decompress the spinal canal when there is an- terior compression behind the vertebral body.
    [Show full text]
  • Post–Vertebral Augmentation Back Pain: ORIGINAL RESEARCH Evaluation and Management
    Post–Vertebral Augmentation Back Pain: ORIGINAL RESEARCH Evaluation and Management S. Kamalian BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Vertebral augmentation is an established treatment for painful osteo- R. Bordia porotic vertebral fractures of the spine. Nevertheless, patients may continue to have significant back pain afterward. The purpose of this study was to assess the source of persistent or recurrent back pain A.O. Ortiz following vertebral augmentation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our institutional review board approved this study. We evaluated 124 consecutive patients who underwent vertebral augmentation for painful osteoporotic vertebral frac- tures. All patients were evaluated after 3 weeks, 3 months, and 1 year following their procedure. Patients with any type of back pain after their procedure were examined under fluoroscopy. RESULTS: Thirty-four of 124 (27%) patients were men, and 90/124 (73%) were women. Persistent or recurrent back pain, not due to a new fracture or a failed procedure, was present in 29/124 (23%) patients. The source of pain was most often attributed to the sacroiliac and/or lumbar facet joints (25/29 or 86%). Seventeen of 29 (59%) patients experienced immediate relief after facet joint injection of a mixture of steroid and local anesthetic agents. The remaining 12 (41%) had relief after additional injections. Ten (34%) patients ultimately required radio-frequency neurolysis for long-term relief. CONCLUSIONS: Back pain after vertebral augmentation may not be due to a failed procedure but rather to an old or a new pain generator, such as an irritated sacroiliac or lumbar facet joint. This is of importance not only for further pain management of these patients but also for designing trials to compare the efficacy of vertebral augmentation to other treatments.
    [Show full text]
  • Procedure Codes
    NEW YORK STATE MEDICAID PROGRAM ORDERED AMBULATORY PROCEDURE CODES Ordered Ambulatory Procedure Codes Table of Contents GENERAL INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2 LABORATORY SERVICES INFORMATION-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2 RADIOLOGY INFORMATION------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3 MMIS MODIFIERS --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6 RADIOLOGY SERVICES------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------7 DIAGNOSTIC RADIOLOGY (DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING) ------------------------------------------------------------------------7 DIAGNOSTIC ULTRASOUND SERVICES- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20 RADIOLOGIC GUIDANCE....................................................................................................................................25 BREAST, MAMMOGRAPHY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 26 BONE/JOINT STUDIES --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 26 RADIATION ONCOLOGY SERVICES --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27 NUCLEAR
    [Show full text]
  • Vertebral Augmentation ICD 9 Codes: Osteoporosis 733. 0, Vertebra
    BRIGHAM AND WOMEN’S HOSPITAL Department of Rehabilitation Services Physical Therapy Standard of Care: Vertebral Augmentation ICD 9 Codes: Osteoporosis 733. 0, Vertebral Fracture closed 805.8, Pathological fracture of Vertebrae 733.13 Vertebral augmentation, known as vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty, is a minimally invasive procedure that is used to treat vertebral fractures. Vertebral fractures are the most common skeletal injury associated with osteoporosis, and it is estimated that more than 750,000 occur annually in the United States.1 Up to one quarter of people over 50 years of age will have at least one vertebral fracture in their life time secondary to osteoporosis.2 According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the operational definition of osteoporosis is a bone density measure >2.5 standard deviations (SD) below the mean of young healthy adults of similar race and gender.3 Primary osteoporosis is related to the changes in postmenopausal women secondary to reduction of estrogen levels and related to age-related loss of bone mass. Secondary osteoporosis is the loss of bone caused by an agent or disease process. 1,4 (See Osteoporosis SOC) The severity of vertebral fractures can be assessed by the Genat semiquantitative method. Commonly used by radiologists, this scale assesses the severity of the fracture visually and has been shown to be reliable.5 Genat Semiquantitive Grading System for Vertebral Deformity5 Grade 0- normal vertebral height Grade 1- minimal fracture- 20-25% height decrease Grade 2- moderate fracture- 25-40% height decrease Grade 3-severe- >40% height decrease Standard methods of diagnosing vertebral fractures are imaging, including the following: CT scan, MRI, and radiography.
    [Show full text]
  • Pain Management & Spine Surgery Procedures
    OrthoNet PPA Code List Pain Management and Spine Surgery Procedures AND Effective 01/01/2018 Major Joint and Foot/ Lower Extremity Procedures (Blue Medicare HMO PPO) CATEGORY PROCCODE PROCEDURE DESCRIPTION Pain Management & Spine Surgery Procedures Spinal Fusion 22510 Perq cervicothoracic inject Spinal Fusion 22511 Perq lumbosacral injection Spinal Fusion 22512 Vertebroplasty addl inject Spinal Fusion 22513 Perq vertebral augmentation Spinal Fusion 22514 Perq vertebral augmentation Spinal Fusion 22515 Perq vertebral augmentation Spinal Fusion 22532 LAT THORAX SPINE FUSION Spinal Fusion 22533 LAT LUMBAR SPINE FUSION Spinal Fusion 22534 LAT THOR/LUMB ADDL SEG Spinal Fusion 22548 NECK SPINE FUSION Spinal Fusion 22551 NECK SPINE FUSE&REMOV BEL C2 Spinal Fusion 22552 ADDL NECK SPINE FUSION Spinal Fusion 22554 NECK SPINE FUSION Spinal Fusion 22556 THORAX SPINE FUSION Spinal Fusion 22558 LUMBAR SPINE FUSION Spinal Fusion 22585 ADDITIONAL SPINAL FUSION Spinal Fusion 22590 SPINE & SKULL SPINAL FUSION Spinal Fusion 22595 NECK SPINAL FUSION Spinal Fusion 22600 NECK SPINE FUSION Spinal Fusion 22610 THORAX SPINE FUSION Spinal Fusion 22612 LUMBAR SPINE FUSION Spinal Fusion 22614 SPINE FUSION, EXTRA SEGMENT Spinal Fusion 22630 LUMBAR SPINE FUSION Spinal Fusion 22632 SPINE FUSION, EXTRA SEGMENT Spinal Fusion 22633 LUMBAR SPINE FUSION COMBINED Spinal Fusion 22634 SPINE FUSION EXTRA SEGMENT Spinal Fusion 22800 FUSION OF SPINE Spinal Fusion 22802 FUSION OF SPINE Spinal Fusion 22804 FUSION OF SPINE Spinal Fusion 22808 FUSION OF SPINE Spinal Fusion 22810 FUSION
    [Show full text]
  • Hounsfield Units on Lumbar Computed Tomography For
    Open Med. 2019; 14: 545-551 Research Article Kyung Joon Kim, Dong Hwan Kim, Jae Il Lee, Byung Kwan Choi, In Ho Han, Kyoung Hyup Nam* Hounsfield Units on Lumbar Computed Tomography for Predicting Regional Bone Mineral Density https://doi.org/10.1515/med-2019-0061 Keywords: Hounsfield Unit; Bone Mineral Density (BMD); received March 28, 2019; accepted June 7, 2019 Dual X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA); Quantitative com- puted tomography (QCT); Osteoporosis Abstract: Objective: Bone mineral density (BMD) is a very important factor in spinal fusion surgery using instrumen- tation. Our aim was to investigate the utility of Hounsfield units (HU) obtained from preoperative lumbar computed tomography (CT) to predict osteoporosis coupling with data of quantitative computed tomography (QCT) and 1 Introduction dual X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA). Bone quality is an important prognostic factor for spinal Methods. We reviewed 180 patients that underwent both fusion with instrumentation. Severe osteoporosis is a sig- QCT and lumbar CT for spine surgery. HU was retrospec- nificant cause of hardware failure such as pedicle screw tively calculated on the lumbar CT of 503 lumbar vertebrae loosening and pull-out after spinal fusion surgery. Thus, from L1 to L3. Femur DEXA was performed in all patients bone mineral density (BMD) is a very important factor in and spine DEXA was tested in 120 patients (331 vertebrae). spinal fusion surgery, and the diagnosis of osteoporosis BMD was grouped as osteoporosis (QCT<80mg/cm3, DEXA before surgery is very important. BMD using dual X-ray T score≤-2.5) and non-osteoporosis (QCT≥80mg/cm3, absorptiometry (DEXA) or quantitative computed tomog- DEXA T score>-2.5) for comparison of HU value.
    [Show full text]
  • Musculoskeletal Program CPT Codes and Descriptions
    Musculoskeletal Program CPT Codes and Descriptions Spine Surgery Procedure Codes CPT CODES DESCRIPTION Allograft, morselized, or placement of osteopromotive material, for spine surgery only (List separately in addition 20930 to code for primary procedure) 20931 Allograft, structural, for spine surgery only (List separately in addition to code for primary procedure) Autograft for spine surgery only (includes harvesting the graft); local (eg, ribs, spinous process, or laminar 20936 fragments) obtained from same incision (List separately in addition to code for primary procedure) Autograft for spine surgery only (includes harvesting the graft); morselized (through separate skin or fascial 20937 incision) (List separately in addition to code for primary procedure) Autograft for spine surgery only (includes harvesting the graft); structural, bicortical or tricortical (through separate 20938 skin or fascial incision) (List separately in addition to code for primary procedure) 20974 Electrical stimulation to aid bone healing; noninvasive (nonoperative) Osteotomy of spine, posterior or posterolateral approach, 3 columns, 1 vertebral segment (eg, pedicle/vertebral 22206 body subtraction); thoracic Osteotomy of spine, posterior or posterolateral approach, 3 columns, 1 vertebral segment (eg, pedicle/vertebral 22207 body subtraction); lumbar Osteotomy of spine, posterior or posterolateral approach, 3 columns, 1 vertebral segment (eg, pedicle/vertebral 22208 body subtraction); each additional vertebral segment (List separately in addition to code for
    [Show full text]
  • Differences Between Subtotal Corpectomy and Laminoplasty for Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy
    Spinal Cord (2010) 48, 214–220 & 2010 International Spinal Cord Society All rights reserved 1362-4393/10 $32.00 www.nature.com/sc ORIGINAL ARTICLE Differences between subtotal corpectomy and laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy S Shibuya1, S Komatsubara1, S Oka2, Y Kanda1, N Arima1 and T Yamamoto1 1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, School of Medicine, Kagawa University, Kagawa, Japan and 2Oka Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Clinic, Kagawa, Japan Objective: This study aimed to obtain guidelines for choosing between subtotal corpectomy (SC) and laminoplasty (LP) by analysing the surgical outcomes, radiological changes and problems associated with each surgical modality. Study Design: A retrospective analysis of two interventional case series. Setting: Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kagawa University, Japan. Methods: Subjects comprised 34 patients who underwent SC and 49 patients who underwent LP. SC was performed by high-speed drilling to remove vertebral bodies. Autologous strut bone grafting was used. LP was performed as an expansive open-door LP. The level of decompression was from C3 to C7. Clinical evaluations included recovery rate (RR), frequency of C5 root palsy after surgery, re-operation and axial pain. Radiographic assessments included sagittal cervical alignment and bone union. Results: Comparisons between the two groups showed no significant differences in age at surgery, preoperative factors, RR and frequency of C5 palsy. Progression of kyphotic changes, operation time and volumes of blood loss and blood transfusion were significantly greater in the SC (two- or three- level) group. Six patients in the SC group required additional surgery because of pseudoarthrosis, and four patients underwent re-operation because of adjacent level disc degeneration.
    [Show full text]
  • Effectiveness of Cementoplasty for Vertebral Augmentation in Multiple Myeloma: a Case Series
    WCRJ 2017; 4 (2): e882 EFFECTIVENESS OF CEMENTOPLASTY FOR VERTEBRAL AUGMENTATION IN MULTIPLE MYELOMA: A CASE SERIES G. TESTA1, M. PRIVITERA1, T. FIDILIO1, G. DI STEFANO1, A. VESCIO1, G. D’ANGELO2, V. PAVONE1 1Department of Orthopedics and Traumatologic Surgery, AOU Policlinico-Vittorio Emanuele, University of Catania, Catania, Italy 2Department of Human Pathology in Adult and Developmental Age “Gaetano Barresi” – Unit of Paediatrics, University of Messina, Messina, Italy Abstract – Objective: Multiple myeloma (MM) is a neoplasm characterized by the proliferation of somatically mutated plasma cells that tend to expand within the bone marrow and affect mul- tiple locations throughout the bone marrow. When it is located in vertebral areas it causes bone lesions with pain, kyphosis, walking impairments, and disability. Different types of treatments are available. The goal of this study is to report our experience regarding the treatment of vertebral fractures from multiple myeloma using cementoplasty. Patients and Methods: From January 2012 to December 2015, 38 patients with multiple mye- loma and multilevel vertebral fractures were treated. Seventeen patients underwent conservative treatment (group 1), and 21 patients underwent vertebral augmentation with percutaneous ce- mentoplasty (group 2). Both groups were clinically evaluated at 1, 6 and 12 months using a visual analogic scale (VAS) for pain, SF-36 and ODI Score Questionnaires. Radiographic evaluation was performed to verify the quality of cementoplasty and complications. Results: Mean follow-up was 23.7 months. Mean VAS score in group 1 decreased from 7.1 pre-operatively to 3.9 at final follow-up (p<0.05). In group 2, this score decreased from 7.3 pre-op- eratively to 2.3 at final follow-up (p<0.05).
    [Show full text]
  • Vertebroplasty and Percutaneous Vertebral Augmentation
    Medicare Part C Medical Coverage Policy Vertebroplasty and Percutaneous Vertebral Augmentation Origination Date: December 16, 2002 Vertebroplasty August 20, 2003 Kyphoplasty Review Date: June 17, 2020 Next Review: June, 2022 ***This policy applies to all Blue Medicare HMO, Blue Medicare PPO, Blue Medicare Rx members, and members of any third-party Medicare plans supported by Blue Cross NC through administrative or operational services. *** DESCRIPTION OF PROCEDURE OR SERVICE Vertebroplasty Percutaneous vertebroplasty is a therapeutic, interventional radiologic procedure, which consists of the injection of a biomaterial (usually polymethylmethacrylate- bone cement) under imaging guidance (either fluoroscopy or CT) into a cervical, thoracic or lumbar vertebral body lesion for the relief of pain and the strengthening of bone. Percutaneous Vertebral Augmentation This is also known as balloon-assisted Percutaneous Vertebroplasty or Kyphoplasty. The procedure is similar to percutaneous vertebroplasty in that stabilization of the collapsed vertebra is accomplished by the injection of the same biomaterial into the body of the vertebra. The primary difference is that the fracture is partially reduced with the insertion of an inflatable balloon tamp. Once inflated, the balloon tamp (plug) restores some height to the vertebral body, while creating a cavity that is filled with bone cement. POLICY STATEMENT Coverage will be provided for vertebroplasty or percutaneous vertebral augmentation when it is determined to be medically necessary because the
    [Show full text]