DOCSLIB.ORG

Cover Spine Surgery Guidelines Musculoskeletal Program Clinical

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cover Spine Surgery Guidelines Musculoskeletal Program Clinical Cover Spine Surgery Guidelines Musculoskeletal Program Clinical Appropriateness Guidelines Spine Surgery EFFECTIVE JULY 01, 2018 LAST REVIEWED DECEMBER 12, 2017 Appropriate.Safe.Affordable © 2018 AIM Specialty Health 2063-0718 V.2 Table of Contents Description and Application of the Guidelines ...................................................................................................................... 4 Cervical Decompression With or Without Fusion .................................................................................................................. 5 Description ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Definitions ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Criteria............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 7 Exclusions ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Selected References ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 CPT Codes ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 History .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Cervical Disc Arthroplasty .................................................................................................................................................... 12 Description ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Definitions .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Criteria.......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13 Contraindications ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 13 Exclusions .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Selected References ................................................................................................................................................................................... 14 CPT Codes .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14 History .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Lumbar Disc Arthroplasty .................................................................................................................................................... 16 Description ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 16 Definitions .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 16 Criteria.......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Contraindications ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 17 Exclusions .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Selected References ................................................................................................................................................................................... 18 CPT Codes .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18 History .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Lumbar Discectomy, Foraminotomy, and Laminotomy ....................................................................................................... 19 Description ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19 Definitions .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19 Criteria.......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Exclusions .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Selected References ................................................................................................................................................................................... 21 CPT Codes .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21 History .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Lumbar Fusion and Treatment of Spinal Deformity (including Scoliosis and Kyphosis) ..................................................... 22 Description ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 22 General Considerations ............................................................................................................................................................................... 22 Definitions .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 23 Criteria.......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 24 Exclusions .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 26 Copyright © 2018. AIM Specialty Health. All Rights Reserved. Spine Surgery 2 Selected References ................................................................................................................................................................................... 26 CPT Codes .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 27 History .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 30 Lumbar Laminectomy ......................................................................................................................................................... 31 Description ..................................................................................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Modified Plate-Only Open-Door Laminoplasty Versus Laminectomy and Fusion for the Treatment of Cervical Stenotic Myelopathy
    n Feature Article Modified Plate-only Open-door Laminoplasty Versus Laminectomy and Fusion for the Treatment of Cervical Stenotic Myelopathy LILI YANG, MD; YIFEI GU, MD; JUEQIAN SHI, MD; RUI GAO, MD; YANG LIU, MD; JUN LI, MD; WEN YUAN, MD, PHD abstract Full article available online at Healio.com/Orthopedics. Search: 20121217-23 The purpose of this study was to compare modified plate-only laminoplasty and lami- nectomy and fusion to confirm which of the 2 surgical modalities could achieve a better decompression outcome and whether a significant difference was found in postopera- tive complications. Clinical data were retrospectively reviewed for 141 patients with cervical stenotic myelopathy who underwent plate-only laminoplasty and laminectomy and fusion between November 2007 and June 2010. The extent of decompression was assessed by measuring the cross-sectional area of the dural sac and the distance of spinal cord drift at the 3 most narrowed levels on T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Clinical outcomes and complications were also recorded and compared. Significant en- largement of the dural sac area and spinal cord drift was achieved and well maintained in both groups, but the extent of decompression was greater in patients who underwent Figure: T2-weighted magnetic resonance image laminectomy and fusion; however, a greater decompression did not seem to produce a showing the extent of decompression assessed by better clinical outcome. No significant difference was observed in Japanese Orthopaedic measuring the cross-sectional area of the dural sac Association and Nurick scores between the 2 groups. Patients who underwent plate-only (arrow). laminoplasty showed a better improvement in Neck Dysfunction Index and visual ana- log scale scores.
    [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]
  • 2019 Spine Coding Basics
    2019 Spine Coding Basics Presenter: Kerri Larson, CPC Directory of Coding and Audit Services 2019 Spine Surgery 01 Spine Surgery Terminology & Anatomy 02 Spine Procedures 03 Case Study 04 Diagnosis 05 Q & A Spine Surgery Terminology & Anatomy Spine Surgery Terminology & Anatomy Term Definition Arthrodesis Fusion, or permanent joining, of a joint, or point of union of two musculoskeletal structures, such as two bones Surgical procedure that replaces missing bone with material from the patient's own body, or from an artificial, synthetic, or Bone grafting natural substitute Corpectomy Surgical excision of the main body of a vertebra, one of the interlocking bones of the back. Cerebrospinal The protective body fluid present in the dura, the membrane covering the brain and spinal cord fluid or CSF Decompression A procedure to remove pressure on a structure. Diskectomy, Surgical removal of all or a part of an intervertebral disc. discectomy Dura Outermost of the three layers that surround the brain and spinal cord. Electrode array Device that contains multiple plates or electrodes. Electronic pulse A device that produces low voltage electrical pulses, with a regular or intermittent waveform, that creates a mild tingling or generator or massaging sensation that stimulates the nerve pathways neurostimulator Spine Surgery Terminology & Anatomy Term Definition The space that surrounds the dura, which is the outermost layer of membrane that surrounds the spinal canal. The epidural space houses the Epidural space spinal nerve roots, blood and lymphatic vessels, and fatty tissues . Present inside the skull but outside the dura mater, which is the thick, outermost membrane covering the brain or within the spine but outside Extradural the dural sac enclosing the spinal cord, nerve roots and spinal fluid.
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of the Cervical Spine Alignment Following Laminoplasty and Laminectomy
    Spinal Cord (1999) 37, 20± 24 ã 1999 International Medical Society of Paraplegia All rights reserved 1362 ± 4393/99 $12.00 http://www.stockton-press.co.uk/sc Analysis of the cervical spine alignment following laminoplasty and laminectomy Shunji Matsunaga1, Takashi Sakou1 and Kenji Nakanisi2 1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Kagoshima University; 2Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Kagoshima University, Sakuragaoka, Kagoshima, Japan Very little detailed biomechanical examination of the alignment of the cervical spine following laminoplasty has been reported. We performed a comparative study regarding the buckling- type alignment that follows laminoplasty and laminectomy to know the mechanical changes in the alignment of the cervical spine. Lateral images of plain roentgenograms of the cervical spine were put into a computer and examined using a program we developed for analysis of the buckling-type alignment. Sixty-four patients who underwent laminoplasty and 37 patients who underwent laminectomy were reviewed retrospectively. The subjects comprised patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) and those with ossi®cation of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL). The postoperative observation period was 6 years and 7 months on average after laminectomy, and 5 years and 6 months on average following laminoplasty. Development of the buckling-type alignment was found in 33% of patients following laminectomy and only 6% after laminoplasty. Development of buckling-type alignment following laminoplasty appeared markedly less than following laminectomy in both CSM and OPLL patients. These results favor laminoplasty over laminectomy from the aspect of mechanics. Keywords: laminoplasty; laminectomy; buckling; kyphosis; swan-neck deformity Introduction In 1930, Eiselberg1 reported a case of postoperative of postoperative abnormal alignment from the aspect kyphosis of the spine following laminectomy from the of the presence or absence of buckling-type alignment.
    [Show full text]
  • Resection Arthroplasty for Failed Shoulder Arthroplasty
    J Shoulder Elbow Surg (2013) 22, 247-252 www.elsevier.com/locate/ymse Resection arthroplasty for failed shoulder arthroplasty Stephanie J. Muh, MDa, Jonathan J. Streit, MDb, Christopher J. Lenarz, MDa, Christopher McCrum, BSc, John Paul Wanner, BSa, Yousef Shishani, MDa, Claudio Moraga, MDd, Robert J. Nowinski, DOe, T. Bradley Edwards, MDf, Jon J.P. Warner, MDg, Gilles Walch, MDh, Reuben Gobezie, MDi,* aCase Shoulder and Elbow Service, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, University Hospitals of Cleveland, Cleveland, OH, USA bDepartment of Orthopaedics, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, University Hospitals of Cleveland, Cleveland, OH, USA cCase Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA dDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Clinica Alemana Santiago, Santiago, Chile eOrthoNeuro, New Albany, OH, USA fFondren Orthopedic Group, Houston, TX, USA gHarvard Shoulder Service, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA hCentre Orthopedique Santy, Shoulder Unit, Lyon, France iThe Cleveland Shoulder Institute, University Hospitals of Cleveland, Cleveland, OH, USA Background: As shoulder arthroplasty becomes more common, the number of failed arthroplasties requiring revision is expected to increase. When revision arthroplasty is not feasible, resection arthroplasty has been used in an attempt to restore function and relieve pain. Although outcomes data for resection arthroplasty exist, studies comparing the outcomes after the removal of different primary shoulder arthro- plasties have been limited. Materials and methods: This was a retrospective multicenter review of 26 patients who underwent resection arthroplasty for failure of a primary arthroplasty at a mean follow-up of 41.8 months (range, 12-130 months). Resection arthroplasty was performed for 6 failed total shoulder arthroplasties (TSAs), 7 failed hemiarthro- plasties, and 13 failed reverse TSAs.
    [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]
  • Spinal Interventional Pain Management and Lumbar Spine Surgery
    Spinal Interventional Pain Management and Lumbar Spine Surgery Policy Number: Original Effective Date: MM.06.024 01/01/2014 Line(s) of Business: Current Effective Date: HMO; PPO; QUEST Integration 12/15/2017 Section: Surgery; Medicine Place(s) of Service: Office; Outpatient; Inpatient I. Description The following spinal interventional pain management and lumbar spine surgery procedures require precertification through Magellan Hawaii, formally known as National Imaging Associates, Inc. (NIA): A. Spinal Epidural Injections B. Paravertebral Facet Joint Denervation (radiofrequency neurolysis) C. Paravertebral Facet Joint Injections or Blocks D. Sacroiliac joint injections E. Lumbar Spinal Fusion Surgery II. Administrative Guidelines A. The ordering physician can obtain precertification or consult with Magellan Hawaii by accessing their website at http://www.radmd.com/ or by calling 1 (866) 306-9729, from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., weekdays, Hawaii Time. Refer to the e-library for instructions on navigating the radmd.com website (RadMD Get Started) and requesting precertification/checking the status of a request (RadMD QuickStart). B. For access to the latest clinical guidelines used for precertification, go to www.radmd.com and click on the link entitled View Clinical Guidelines. C. For interventional pain management procedures (epidural injections, facet joint denervation neurolysis, facet joint injections and sacroiliac joint injections), if more than one procedure is planned, a separate precertification number must be obtained for each procedure planned. D. For spinal surgeries (lumbar fusions, lumbar decompressions, and lumbar microdiscectomy), one precertification number should be obtained for the most invasive surgery to be performed. E. Precertification requirements for injection procedures apply only to office and outpatient services (POS 11, 22, or 24).
    [Show full text]
  • 2017 American College of Rheumatology/American Association
    Arthritis Care & Research Vol. 69, No. 8, August 2017, pp 1111–1124 DOI 10.1002/acr.23274 VC 2017, American College of Rheumatology SPECIAL ARTICLE 2017 American College of Rheumatology/ American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons Guideline for the Perioperative Management of Antirheumatic Medication in Patients With Rheumatic Diseases Undergoing Elective Total Hip or Total Knee Arthroplasty SUSAN M. GOODMAN,1 BRYAN SPRINGER,2 GORDON GUYATT,3 MATTHEW P. ABDEL,4 VINOD DASA,5 MICHAEL GEORGE,6 ORA GEWURZ-SINGER,7 JON T. GILES,8 BEVERLY JOHNSON,9 STEVE LEE,10 LISA A. MANDL,1 MICHAEL A. MONT,11 PETER SCULCO,1 SCOTT SPORER,12 LOUIS STRYKER,13 MARAT TURGUNBAEV,14 BARRY BRAUSE,1 ANTONIA F. CHEN,15 JEREMY GILILLAND,16 MARK GOODMAN,17 ARLENE HURLEY-ROSENBLATT,18 KYRIAKOS KIROU,1 ELENA LOSINA,19 RONALD MacKENZIE,1 KALEB MICHAUD,20 TED MIKULS,21 LINDA RUSSELL,1 22 14 23 17 ALEXANDER SAH, AMY S. MILLER, JASVINDER A. SINGH, AND ADOLPH YATES Guidelines and recommendations developed and/or endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) are intended to provide guidance for particular patterns of practice and not to dictate the care of a particular patient. The ACR considers adherence to the recommendations within this guideline to be volun- tary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the physician in light of each patient’s individual circumstances. Guidelines and recommendations are intended to promote benefi- cial or desirable outcomes but cannot guarantee any specific outcome. Guidelines and recommendations developed and endorsed by the ACR are subject to periodic revision as warranted by the evolution of medi- cal knowledge, technology, and practice.
    [Show full text]
  • Two-Level Cervical Corpectomy—Long-Term Follow-Up Reveals the High Rate of Material Failure in Patients, Who Received an Anterior Approach Only
    Neurosurgical Review (2019) 42:511–518 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-018-0993-6 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Two-level cervical corpectomy—long-term follow-up reveals the high rate of material failure in patients, who received an anterior approach only Simon Heinrich Bayerl1 & Florian Pöhlmann1 & Tobias Finger1 & Vincent Prinz1 & Peter Vajkoczy 1 Received: 25 August 2017 /Revised: 20 November 2017 /Accepted: 5 December 2017 /Published online: 18 June 2018 # Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018 Abstract In contrast to a one-level cervical corpectomy, a multilevel corpectomy without posterior fusion is accompanied by a high material failure rate. So far, the adequate surgical technique for patients, who receive a two-level corpectomy, remains to be elucidated. The aim of this study was to determine the long-term clinical outcome of patients with cervical myelopathy, who underwent a two-level corpectomy. Outcome parameters of 21 patients, who received a two-level cervical corpectomy, were retrospectively analyzed concerning reoperations and outcome scores (VAS, Neck Disability Index (NDI), Nurick scale, mod- ified Japanese Orthopaedic Association score (mJOAS), Short Form 36-item Health Survey Questionnaire (SF-36)). The failure rate was determined using postoperative radiographs. The choice over the surgical procedures was exercised by every surgeon individually. Therefore, a distinction between two groups was possible: (1) anterior group (ANT group) with a two-level corpectomy and a cervical plate, (2) anterior/posterior group (A/P group) with two-level corpectomy, cervical plate, and addi- tional posterior fusion. Both groups benefitted from surgery concerning pain, disability, and myelopathy. While all patients of the A/P group showed no postoperative instability, one third of the patients of the ANT group exhibited instability and clinical deterioration.
    [Show full text]
  • Automated Percutaneous and Endoscopic Discectomy
    Corporate Medical Policy Automated Percutaneous and Endoscopic Discectomy File Name: percutaneous_discectomy Origination: 9/1991 Last CAP Review: 5/2021 Next CAP Review: 5/2022 Last Review: 5/2021 Description of Procedure or Service Surgical management of herniated intervertebral discs most commonly involves discectomy or microdiscectomy, performed manually through an open incision. Automated percutaneous discectomy involves placement of a probe within the intervertebral disc under image guidance with aspiration of disc material using a suction cutting device. Removal of disc herniations under endoscopic visualization is also being investigated. Endoscopic discectomy involves the percutaneous placement of a working channel under image guidance, followed by visualization of the working space and instruments through an endoscope, and aspiration of disc material. Back pain or radiculopathy related to herniated discs is an extremely common condition and a frequent cause of chronic disability. Although many cases of acute low back pain and radiculopathy will resolve with conservative care, a surgical decompression is often considered when the pain is unimproved after several months and is clearly neuropathic in origin, resulting from irritation of the nerve roots. Open surgical treatment typically consists of discectomy, in which the extruding disc material is excised. When performed with an operating microscope the procedure is known as microdiscectomy. Minimally invasive options have also been researched, in which some portion of the disc is removed or ablated, although these techniques are not precisely targeted at the offending extruding disc material. Ablative techniques include laser discectomy and radiofrequency (RF) decompression. In addition, intradiscal electrothermal annuloplasty is another minimally invasive approach to low back pain.
    [Show full text]