MEDICAL POLICY

POLICY
RELATED POLICIES
POLICY GUIDELINES
DESCRIPTION
SCOPE
BENEFIT APPLICATION
RATIONALE
REFERENCES
CODING
APPENDIX
HISTORY

Axial Lumbosacral Interbody Fusion

Number 7.01.130

Effective Date January 28, 2015

Revision Date(s) 06/01/15; 01/13/15; 01/13/14; 01/14/13

Replaces N/A

Policy

Axial lumbosacral interbody fusion (axial LIF) is considered investigational.

Related Policies

7.01.107

Interspinous and Interlaminar Stabilization/Distraction Devices (Spacers)

7.01.120

Facet Arthroplasty

7.01.138

Interspinous Fixation (Fusion) Devices

7.01.542

Lumbar Fusion

7.01.551

Lumbar Spine Decompression Surgery: Discectomy, Foraminotomy, Laminotomy, Laminectomy

Policy Guidelines

Coding

CPT

0195T

Arthrodesis, pre-sacral interbody technique, disc space preparation, discectomy, without instrumentation, with image guidance, includes bone graft when performed; L5-S1 interspace

0196T

L4-L5 interspace (List separately in addition to code for primary procedure)

0309T

Arthrodesis, pre-sacral interbody technique, including disc space preparation, discectomy, with posterior instrumentation, with image guidance, includes bone graft, when performed, lumbar, L4-L5 interspace (List separately in addition to code for primary procedure)

22586

Arthrodesis, pre-sacral interbody technique, including disc space preparation, discectomy, with posterior instrumentation, with image guidance, includes bone graft when performed, L5-S1 interspace.

Description

Axial lumbosacral interbody fusion (LIF; also called pre-sacral, trans-sacral or paracoccygeal interbody fusion) is a minimally invasive technique designed to provide anterior access to the L4-S1 disc spaces for interbody fusion, while minimizing damage to muscular, ligamentous, neural, and vascular structures. It is performed under fluoroscopic guidance.

Axial LIF (also called presacral, transacral, or paracoccygeal interbody fusion) is a minimally invasive technique designed to provide anterior access to the L4-S1 disc spaces for interbody fusion, while minimizing damage to muscular, ligamentous, neural, and vascular structures. It is performed under fluoroscopic guidance.

The procedure for 1-level axial LIF is as follows (1): Under fluoroscopic monitoring, a blunt guide pin introducer is passed through a 15- to 20-mm incision lateral to the coccyx and advanced along the midline of the anterior surface of the sacrum. A guide pin is introduced and tapped into the sacrum. A series of graduated dilators are advanced over the guide pin, and a dilator sheath attached to the last dilator is left in place to serve as a working channel for the passage of instruments. A cannulated drill is passed over the guide pin into the L5-S1 disc space to rest on the inferior endplate of L5. It is followed by cutters alternating with tissue extractors, and the nucleus pulposus is debulked under fluoroscopic guidance. Next, bone graft material is injected to fill the disc space. The threaded rod is placed over the guide pin and advanced through the sacrum into L5. The implant is designed to distract the vertebral bodies and restore disc and neural foramen height. Additional graft material is injected into the rod, where it enters into the disc space through holes in the axial rod. A rod plug is then inserted to fill the cannulation of the axial rod. Percutaneous placement of pedicle or facet screws may be used to provide supplemental fixation. An advantage of axial LIF is that it allows preservation of the annulus and all paraspinous soft tissue structures. However, there is an increased need for fluoroscopy and an inability to address intracanal pathology or visualize the discectomy procedure directly. Complications of the axial approach may include perforation of the bowel and injury to blood vessels and/or nerves.

Regulatory Status

The AxiaLIF® and AxiaLIF II Level systems were developed by TranS1 and consist of techniques and surgical instruments for creating a pre-sacral access route to perform percutaneous fusion of the L5-S1 or L4–S1 vertebral bodies. (In 2013, TranS1 acquired Baxano and changed the company name to Baxano Surgical.) The FDA 510(k) marketing clearance summaries indicate that the procedures are intended to provide anterior stabilization of the spinal segments as an adjunct to spinal fusion and to assist in the treatment of degeneration of the lumbar disc; to perform lumbar discectomy; or to assist in the performance of interbody fusion. (2,3) The AxiaLIF® systems are indicated for patients requiring fusion to treat pseudoarthrosis, unsuccessful previous fusion, spinal stenosis, Grade 1 or 2 spondylolisthesis, or degenerative disc disease, defined as back pain of discogenic origin with degeneration of the disc confirmed by history and radiographic studies. They are not intended to treat severe scoliosis, severe spondylolisthesis (Grades 3 and 4), tumor, or trauma. The devices are not meant to be used in patients with vertebral compression fractures or any other condition in which the mechanical integrity of the vertebral body is compromised. Their usage is limited to anterior supplemental fixation of the lumbar spine at L5-S1 or L4-S1 in conjunction with legally marketed facet or pedicle screw systems.

FDA product code: KWQ

Scope

Medical policies are systematically developed guidelines that serve as a resource for Company staff when determining coverage for specific medical procedures, drugs or devices. Coverage for medical services is subject to the limits and conditions of the member benefit plan. Members and their providers should consult the member benefit booklet or contact a customer service representative to determine whether there are any benefit limitations applicable to this service or supply. This medical policy does not apply to Medicare Advantage.

Benefit Application

N/A

Rationale

This policy was created in 2011 and updated periodically using the MEDLINE database. The most recent literature review was performed through September 24, 2014.

Assessment of efficacy for therapeutic interventions involves a determination of whether the intervention improves health outcomes. The optimal study design for a therapeutic intervention is a randomized controlled trial that includes clinically relevant measures of health outcomes. Intermediate outcome measures, also known as surrogate outcome measures, may also be adequate if there is an established link between the intermediate outcome and true health outcomes. Nonrandomized comparative studies and uncontrolled studies can sometimes provide useful information on health outcomes, but are prone to biases such as noncomparability of treatment groups, the placebo effect, and variable natural history of the condition.

The literature on axial lumbosacral interbody fusion (axial LIF) consists of case series and one retrospective comparison of axial LIF versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF). No prospective randomized controlled trials have been identified that compare outcomes of axial LIF with other approaches to lumbosacral interbody fusion.

Single-Level Axial LIF

The largest case series published to date is a 2011 retrospective analysis of 156 patients from 4 clinical sites in the United States. (4) Patients were selected for inclusion if they underwent a L5-S1 interbody fusion via the axial approach and had both presurgical and 2-year radiographic or clinical follow-up. The number of patients who underwent axial LIF but were not included in the analysis was not reported. The primary diagnosis was degenerative disc disease (61.5%), spondylolisthesis (21.8%), revision surgery (8.3%), herniated nucleus pulposus (8.3%), spinal stenosis (7.7%) or other (8.3%). Pain scores on a numeric rating scale improved from a mean of 7.7 to 2.7 (n=155), while the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) improved from a mean of 36.6 preoperatively to 19.0 (n=78) at 2-year follow-up. Clinical success rates, based on an improvement of at least 30%, were 86% for pain (n=127/147) and 74% for the ODI (n=57/77). The overall radiographic fusion rate at 2 years was 94% (145/155). No vascular, neural, urologic, or bowel injuries were reported in this study group. Limitations of this study include the retrospective analysis, lack of controls, and potential for selection bias by only reporting on the patients who had 2 years of follow-up.

Zeilstra et al. conducted a retrospective review of 131 axial LIF procedures (L5-S1) performed at their institution over a period of 6 years. (5) All patients had undergone a minimum of 6 months (mean, 5 years) of unsuccessful nonsurgical management and had magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), radiographs, provocative discography and anesthetization of the disc. MRI of the sacrum and coccyx was performed to identify vascular anomalies, tumor, or surgical scarring that would preclude safe access through the presacral space, and patients followed a bowel preparation protocol the night before surgery. Percutaneous facet screw fixation was used in all patients beginning mid-2008. No intraoperative complications were reported. At a mean follow-up of 21 months (minimum 1 year), back pain had decreased by 51% (from a visual analog score [VAS] of 70 to 39), leg pain decreased by 42% (from 45 to 26), and back function scores (ODI) improved by 50% compared with baseline. With clinical success defined as improvement of 30% or more, 66% of patients were improved in back and leg pain severity. Employment increased from 47% to 64% at follow-up. The fusion rate was 87.8%, with 9.2% indeterminate on radiograph and 3.1% showing pseudoarthrosis. There were 8 reoperations (6.1%) at the index level.

Whang et al. reported a multicenter retrospective comparison of axial LIF versus ALIF of L5-S1 in 96 patients with a minimum of 2 years of follow-up. (6) Most of the procedures were performed for degenerative disc disease or spondylolisthesis and included the use of bilateral pedicle screws. A variety of graft materials was used, including the use of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (in 29 axial LIF and 11 ALIF procedures. Fusion, assessed at 24 months by 2 independent evaluators based on radiographs and multiplanar CT images, was similar for the 2 procedures (85% for axial LIF, 79% for ALIF, p>0.05). The incidence of adverse events was also similar, with no cases of rectal perforation. Interpretation of this study is limited by the retrospective nature of the study, variability in procedures, absence of validated clinical outcome measures, and lack of randomization. Although the authors comment that a prospective trial is expected to begin enrollment soon, a search of online site www.clinicaltrials.gov in October 2014 shows a large clinical trial terminated due to slow enrollment (see Ongoing and Unpublished Clinical Trials section next).

In 2012, Gerszten et al. reported a series of patients who had a minimum 2-year follow-up after axial LIF with percutaneous posterior fixation with pedicle screws for the stabilization of grade 1 or grade 2 lumbosacral isthmic spondylolisthesis. (7) There were no perioperative procedure-related complications. The spondylolisthesis grade in the 26 consecutive patients was significantly improved at follow-up, with 50% of patients showing a reduction of at least 1 grade. Axial pain severity improved from a VAS score of 8.1 to 2.8, and 81% of patients were considered to have excellent or good results by Odom criteria. At 2 years post-treatment, all patients showed solid fusion.

Additional series with fewer than 100 patients are reviewed by Zeilstra et al. (5) Improvement in back pain in these studies ranges from 49% to 67% and improvement in the ODI ranges from 50% to 56%.

Two-level Axial LIF

Marchi et al. reported prospective 2-year follow-up on 27 patients who underwent 2-level (L4-5 and L5-S1) axial LIF. (8) Average back pain improved from a VAS score of 8.08 to 4.04 and the ODI improved from 51.7 to 31.4. Although no intraoperative complications occurred, the authors reported that the rod was malpositioned in 3 cases due to difficulty in attaining an adequate route for the double-level access, and in one of these cases, the rod eventually migrated and perforated the bowel. Five patients (18.5%) underwent additional surgery for malpositioned rods, broken posterior screws, failure of the rods, and collapse of spine levels. Total complications observed at follow-up included screw breakage (14.8%), trans-sacral rod detachment (11.1%), radiolucency around the trans-sacral rod (52%), and disc collapse with cephalic rod migration (24%). A gain in disc height was observed 1 week after surgery, but by the 24-month follow-up, the disc space was reduced compared with the preoperative state. Only 22% of levels had solid fusion at the 24-month radiologic evaluation, and only 2 patients had solid fusion at both levels.

Axial LIF Combined with Another Procedure

In 2010, Patil et al. reported a retrospective review of 50 patients treated with axial LIF. (9) Four patients (8%) underwent 2-level axial LIF, and 16 patients (32%) underwent a combination of axial LIF with another procedure for an additional level of fusion. There were 3 reoperations due to pseudoarthrosis (n=2) and rectal injury (n=1). Other complications included superficial infection (n=5), hematoma (n=2), and irritation of a nerve root by a screw (n=1). At 12- to 24-month follow-up, VAS scores had decreased from 8.1 to 3.6 (n=48). At an average 12-month follow-up, 47 of 49 patients (96%) with postoperative radiographs achieved solid fusion. There were no significant differences between pre- and postoperative disc space height and lumbar lordosis angle.

Adverse Events

An industry-sponsored 5-year voluntary post marketing surveillance study of 9,152 patients was reported by Gundanna et al. in 2011. (10) A single-level L5-S1 fusion was performed in 8,034 patients (88%), and a 2-level (L4-S1) fusion was performed in 1,118 patients (12%). A pre-defined database was designed to record device- or procedure-related complaints through spontaneous reporting. Several procedures, including the presence of a TransS1 representative during every case, were implemented to encourage complication reporting. The complications that were recorded included bowel injury, superficial wound and systemic infections, transient intraoperative hypotension, migration, subsidence, presacral hematoma, sacral fracture, vascular injury, nerve injury, and ureter injury, (pseudoarthrosis was not included). The follow-up period ranged from 3 months to 5 years 3 months. Complications were reported in 120 patients (1.3%) at a median of 5 days (mean, 33 days; range, 0-511 days). Bowel injury was the most commonly reported complication (0.6%), followed by transient intraoperative hypotension (0.2%). All other complications had an incidence of 0.1% or lower. There were no significant differences in complication rates for single-level (1.3%) and 2-level (1.6%) fusion procedures. Although this study includes a large number of patients, it is limited by the dependence on spontaneous reporting, which may underestimate the true incidence of complications.

Lindley et al. found high complication rates in a retrospective review of 68 patients who underwent axial LIF between 2005 and 2009. (11) Patient diagnoses included degenerative disc disease, spondylolisthesis, spinal stenosis, degenerative lumbar scoliosis, spondylolysis, pseudoarthrosis, and recurrent disc herniation. Ten patients underwent 2-level axial LIF (L4-S1), and 58 patients underwent a single-level axial LIF (L5-S1). A total of 18 complications in 16 patients (23.5%) were identified with a mean 34 month follow-up (range, 17-61 months). Complications included pseudoarthrosis (8.8%), superficial infection (5.9%), sacral fracture (2.9%), pelvic hematoma (2.9%), failure of wound closure (1.5%), and rectal perforation (2.9%). Both of the patients with rectal perforation underwent emergency repair and were reported to have no long-term sequelae. The patients with non-union underwent additional fusion surgery with an anterior or posterior approach. The 2 patients with sacral fractures had pre-existing osteoporosis; one was treated with long iliac screws. Because of the potential for these complications, the authors recommend full bowel preparation and preoperative magnetic resonance (MR) imaging before an axial LIF procedure to assess the size of the presacral space, determine rectal adherence to the sacrum, rule out vascular abnormalities, and determine a proper trajectory.

A search of FDA’s MAUDE database through October 2014 (available online at: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfMAUDE/search.CFM) identified 135 adverse event reports for axial LIF, including possible and confirmed bowel injuries.

Ongoing and Unpublished Clinical Trials

A search of online site ClinicalTrials.gov in October 2014 found an industry-sponsored randomized trial comparing transacral LIF and transforaminal LIF (NCT01716182). The study was projected to enroll 200 patients, but was terminated due to slow enrollment.

Clinical Input Received from Physician Specialty Societies and Academic Medical Centers

While the various physician specialty societies and academic medical centers may collaborate with and make recommendations during this process through the provision of appropriate reviewers, input received does not represent an endorsement or position statement by the physician specialty societies or academic medical centers, unless otherwise noted.

In response to requests, input was received from 2 specialty medical societies and 3 academic medical centers while this policy was under review in 2011. The input considered axial LIF to be investigational.

Summary of Evidence

The available published evidence on axial lumbosacral interbody fusion (LIF) consists of case series and 1 retrospective comparative study. This evidence is insufficient to evaluate whether axial LIF is as effective or as safe as other surgical approaches to lumbosacral interbody fusion, due to the variable natural history of the disorder and the subjective nature of the main outcomes. In addition, there are a relatively large number of adverse event reports in the MAUDE database for axial LIF, which raises the possibility of an increased risk of complications. Controlled trials are needed to better define the benefits and risks of this procedure compared with alternative treatment options. Due to limited evidence and concerns about the safety and efficacy of the axial approach, axial LIF is considered investigational.

Practice Guidelines and Position Statements

The United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) provided guidance on transaxial interbody fusion in the lumbar spine in 2011. (12) The guidance states that current evidence on the efficacy of transaxial interbody lumbosacral fusion is limited in quantity but shows symptom relief in the short term in some patients. Evidence on safety shows that there is a risk of rectal perforation. Therefore this procedure should only be used with special arrangements for clinical governance, consent, and audit or research. NICE encourages further research into transaxial interbody lumbosacral fusion. Research outcomes should include fusion rates, pain and functional scores, quality-of-life measures, and the frequency of both early and late complications. NICE may review this procedure on publication of further evidence.

The American Association of Neurological Surgeons published guidelines for interbody techniques for lumbar fusion in 2014 (part 11). (13) The 2014 guideline states that there is no evidence that conflicts with the previous recommendations of the first generation of lumbar fusion guidelines. There was insufficient evidence to recommend a treatment standard. Minimally invasive procedures were not reviewed.

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has not addressed axial lumbosacral interbody fusion.

Medicare National Coverage

There is no national coverage determination (NCD). In the absence of an NCD, coverage decisions are left to the discretion of local Medicare carriers.

References

  1. Shen FH, Samartzis D, Khanna AJ, et al. Minimally invasive techniques for lumbar interbody fusions. Orthop Clin North Am. Jul 2007; 38(3):373-386. PMID 17629985
  2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Premarket Notification [510(K)] Summary. TranS1® AxiaLIF® Fixation System. Available online at: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf7/K073514.pdf. Last accessed December 29, 2014.
  3. U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Premarket Notification [510(K)] Summary. TranS1® AxiaLIF® II System. Available online at: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf7/K073643.pdf. Last accessed December 24, 2014.
  4. Tobler WD, Gerszten PC, Bradley WD, et al. Minimally invasive axial presacral L5-s1 interbody fusion: two-year clinical and radiographic outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). Sep 15 2011; 36(20):E1296-1301. PMID 21494201
  5. Zeilstra DJ, Miller LE, Block JE. axial lumbar interbody fusion: a 6-year single-center experience. Clin Interv Aging. 2013; 8:1063-1069. PMID 23976846
  6. Whang PG, Sasso RC, Patel VV, et al. Comparison of axial and anterior interbody fusions of the L5-S1 segment: a retrospective cohort analysis. J Spinal Disord Tech. Dec 2014;26(8):437-443. PMID 24196923
  7. Gerszten PC, Tobler W, Raley TJ, et al. Axial presacral lumbar interbody fusion and percutaneous posterior fixation for stabilization of lumbosacral isthmic spondylolisthesis. J Spinal Disord Tech. Apr 2012; 25(2):E36-40. PMID 21964453
  8. Marchi L, Oliveira L, Coutinho E, et al. Results and complications after 2-level axial lumbar interbody fusion with a minimum 2-year follow-up. J Neurosurg Spine. Sep 2012; 17(3):187-192. PMID 22803626
  9. Patil SS, Lindley EM, Patel VV, et al. Clinical and radiological outcomes of axial lumbar interbody fusion. Orthopedics. 2010; 33(12):883. PMID 21162514
  10. Gundanna MI, Miller LE, Block JE. Complications with axial presacral lumbar interbody fusion: A 5-year postmarketing surveillance experience. SAS Journal. 2011; 5:90-94. PMID
  11. Lindley EM, McCullough MA, Burger EL, et al. Complications of axial lumbar interbody fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. Sep 2011; 15(3):273-279. PMID 21599448
  12. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Transaxial interbody lumbosacral fusion, IPG 387. 2011. Available online at: http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/IPG387. Last accessed December 29, 2014.
  13. American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS). J Neurosurgery: Spine Jul 2014 21 (1) 1-139 Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 11: interbody techniques for lumbar fusion. 2014; http://thejns.org/doi/full/10.3171/2014.4.SPINE14276. Accessed September 5, 2014.Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) Medical Policy Reference Manual. Axial Lumbosacral Interbody Fusion. Medical Policy Reference Manual, Policy 7.01.130, 2014.

Coding

Codes

Number

Description

CPT

0195T

Arthrodesis, pre-sacral interbody technique, disc space preparation, discectomy, without instrumentation, with image guidance, includes bone graft when performed; L5-S1 interspace

 

0196T

; L4-L5 interspace (List separately in addition to code for primary procedure)

 

0309T

Arthrodesis, pre-sacral interbody technique, including disc space preparation, discectomy, with posterior instrumentation, with image guidance, includes bone graft, when performed, lumbar, L4-L5 interspace (List separately in addition to code for primary procedure)

 

22586

Arthrodesis, pre-sacral interbody technique, including disc space preparation, discectomy, with posterior instrumentation, with image guidance, includes bone graft when performed, L5-S1 interspace

ICD-9 Procedure

81.08

Lumbar and lumbosacral fusion of the anterior column, posterior technique

ICD-10-PCS (effective 10/1/15)

0SG007J

Fusion of Lumbar Vertebral Joint with Autologous Tissue Substitute, Posterior Approach, Anterior Column, Open Approach

 

0SG00AJ

Fusion of Lumbar Vertebral Joint with Interbody Fusion Device, Posterior Approach, Anterior Column, Open Approach

 

0SG00JJ

Fusion of Lumbar Vertebral Joint with Synthetic Substitute, Posterior Approach, Anterior Column, Open Approach

 

0SG00KJ

Fusion of Lumbar Vertebral Joint with Nonautologous Tissue Substitute, Posterior Approach, Anterior Column, Open Approach

 

0SG00ZJ

Fusion of Lumbar Vertebral Joint, Posterior Approach, Anterior Column, Open Approach

 

0SG037J

Fusion of Lumbar Vertebral Joint with Autologous Tissue Substitute, Posterior Approach, Anterior Column, Percutaneous Approach

 

0SG03AJ

Fusion of Lumbar Vertebral Joint with Interbody Fusion Device, Posterior Approach, Anterior Column, Percutaneous Approach

 

0SG03JJ

Fusion of Lumbar Vertebral Joint with Synthetic Substitute, Posterior Approach, Anterior Column, Percutaneous Approach

 

0SG03KJ

Fusion of Lumbar Vertebral Joint with Nonautologous Tissue Substitute, Posterior Approach, Anterior Column, Percutaneous Approach

 

0SG03ZJ

Fusion of Lumbar Vertebral Joint, Posterior Approach, Anterior Column, Percutaneous Approach

 

0SG047J

Fusion of Lumbar Vertebral Joint with Autologous Tissue Substitute, Posterior Approach, Anterior Column, Percutaneous Endoscopic Approach

 

0SG04AJ

Fusion of Lumbar Vertebral Joint with Interbody Fusion Device, Posterior Approach, Anterior Column, Percutaneous Endoscopic Approach

 

0SG04JJ

Fusion of Lumbar Vertebral Joint with Synthetic Substitute, Posterior Approach, Anterior Column, Percutaneous Endoscopic Approach

 

0SG04KJ

Fusion of Lumbar Vertebral Joint with Nonautologous Tissue Substitute, Posterior Approach, Anterior Column, Percutaneous Endoscopic Approach

 

0SG04ZJ

Fusion of Lumbar Vertebral Joint, Posterior Approach, Anterior Column, Percutaneous Endoscopic Approach

 

0SG107J

Fusion of 2 or more Lumbar Vertebral Joints with Autologous Tissue Substitute, Posterior Approach, Anterior Column, Open Approach

 

0SG10AJ

Fusion of 2 or more Lumbar Vertebral Joints with Interbody Fusion Device, Posterior Approach, Anterior Column, Open Approach

 

0SG10JJ

Fusion of 2 or more Lumbar Vertebral Joints with Synthetic Substitute, Posterior Approach, Anterior Column, Open Approach

 

0SG10KJ

Fusion of 2 or more Lumbar Vertebral Joints with Nonautologous Tissue Substitute, Posterior Approach, Anterior Column, Open Approach

 

0SG10ZJ

Fusion of 2 or more Lumbar Vertebral Joints, Posterior Approach, Anterior Column, Open Approach

 

0SG137J

Fusion of 2 or more Lumbar Vertebral Joints with Autologous Tissue Substitute, Posterior Approach, Anterior Column, Percutaneous Approach

 

0SG13AJ

Fusion of 2 or more Lumbar Vertebral Joints with Interbody Fusion Device, Posterior Approach, Anterior Column, Percutaneous Approach

 

0SG13JJ

Fusion of 2 or more Lumbar Vertebral Joints with Synthetic Substitute, Posterior Approach, Anterior Column, Percutaneous Approach

 

0SG13KJ

Fusion of 2 or more Lumbar Vertebral Joints with Nonautologous Tissue Substitute, Posterior Approach, Anterior Column, Percutaneous Approach

 

0SG13ZJ

Fusion of 2 or more Lumbar Vertebral Joints, Posterior Approach, Anterior Column, Percutaneous Approach

 

0SG147J

Fusion of 2 or more Lumbar Vertebral Joints with Autologous Tissue Substitute, Posterior Approach, Anterior Column, Percutaneous Endoscopic Approach

 

0SG14AJ

Fusion of 2 or more Lumbar Vertebral Joints with Interbody Fusion Device, Posterior Approach, Anterior Column, Percutaneous Endoscopic Approach

 

0SG14JJ

Fusion of 2 or more Lumbar Vertebral Joints with Synthetic Substitute, Posterior Approach, Anterior Column, Percutaneous Endoscopic Approach

 

0SG14KJ

Fusion of 2 or more Lumbar Vertebral Joints with Nonautologous Tissue Substitute, Posterior Approach, Anterior Column, Percutaneous Endoscopic Approach

 

0SG14ZJ

Fusion of 2 or more Lumbar Vertebral Joints, Posterior Approach, Anterior Column, Percutaneous Endoscopic Approach

 

0SG307J

Fusion of Lumbosacral Joint with Autologous Tissue Substitute, Posterior Approach, Anterior Column, Open Approach

 

0SG30AJ

Fusion of Lumbosacral Joint with Interbody Fusion Device, Posterior Approach, Anterior Column, Open Approach

 

0SG30JJ

Fusion of Lumbosacral Joint with Synthetic Substitute, Posterior Approach, Anterior Column, Open Approach

 

0SG30KJ

Fusion of Lumbosacral Joint with Nonautologous Tissue Substitute, Posterior Approach, Anterior Column, Open Approach

 

0SG30ZJ

Fusion of Lumbosacral Joint, Posterior Approach, Anterior Column, Open Approach

 

0SG337J

Fusion of Lumbosacral Joint with Autologous Tissue Substitute, Posterior Approach, Anterior Column, Percutaneous Approach

 

0SG33AJ

Fusion of Lumbosacral Joint with Interbody Fusion Device, Posterior Approach, Anterior Column, Percutaneous Approach

 

0SG33JJ

Fusion of Lumbosacral Joint with Synthetic Substitute, Posterior Approach, Anterior Column, Percutaneous Approach

 

0SG33KJ

Fusion of Lumbosacral Joint with Nonautologous Tissue Substitute, Posterior Approach, Anterior Column, Percutaneous Approach

 

0SG33ZJ

Fusion of Lumbosacral Joint, Posterior Approach, Anterior Column, Percutaneous Approach

 

0SG347J

Fusion of Lumbosacral Joint with Autologous Tissue Substitute, Posterior Approach, Anterior Column, Percutaneous Endoscopic Approach

 

0SG34AJ

Fusion of Lumbosacral Joint with Interbody Fusion Device, Posterior Approach, Anterior Column, Percutaneous Endoscopic Approach

 

0SG34JJ

Fusion of Lumbosacral Joint with Synthetic Substitute, Posterior Approach, Anterior Column, Percutaneous Endoscopic Approach

 

0SG34KJ

Fusion of Lumbosacral Joint with Nonautologous Tissue Substitute, Posterior Approach, Anterior Column, Percutaneous Endoscopic Approach

 

0SG34ZJ

Fusion of Lumbosacral Joint, Posterior Approach, Anterior Column, Percutaneous Endoscopic Approach

Appendix

N/A

History

Date

Reason

02/27/12

Replace Policy – Policy Section on axial LIF moved from policy 7.01.542 (Minimally Invasive Lumbar Interbody Fusion) and updated with literature search through September 2011.

09/27/12

Update Coding Section – ICD-10 codes are now effective 10/01/2014.

01/29/13

Replace policy. Policy updated with literature review through August 2012; references 7 and 8 added; one reference removed. Policy statement unchanged. CPT coding updated: CPT codes 22586 and 0309T, effective 1/1/13, added; descriptors changed for codes 0195T and 1096T.

07/25/13

Update Related Policies. Change title to 7.01.107.

09/30/13

Update Related Policies. Change title to 7.01.120.

01/21/14

Replace policy. Policy updated with literature review through September 30, 2013. Reference 5 added; others renumbered/removed. Policy statement unchanged. ICD-9 code 81.08 descriptor updated.

01/28/15

Annual Review. Policy updated with literature review through September 24, 2014; references 6, 13 added; policy statement unchanged.

06/01/15

Coding update. ICD-10 PCS codes added; these were inadvertently removed at last publication.


Disclaimer: This medical policy is a guide in evaluating the medical necessity of a particular service or treatment. The Company adopts policies after careful review of published peer-reviewed scientific literature, national guidelines and local standards of practice. Since medical technology is constantly changing, the Company reserves the right to review and update policies as appropriate. Member contracts differ in their benefits. Always consult the member benefit booklet or contact a member service representative to determine coverage for a specific medical service or supply. CPT codes, descriptions and materials are copyrighted by the American Medical Association (AMA).
©2015 Premera All Rights Reserved.