Commercial
Advanced Search

Spinal Fusion (Independence Administrators)
11.14.27f

Policy


This policy only applies to members for whom Independence Administrators serves as the claims administrator and whose group has not enrolled in the UM vendor program. For those groups who have been given the option to enroll in the UM vendor program, this policy is no longer applicable upon their renewal effective date. Individual member benefits must be verified before/prior to providing services.​​

CERVICAL SPINAL FUSION

MEDICALLY NECESSARY
Cervical spinal fusion is considered medically necessary and, therefore, covered when any of the following criteria are met:
  • Symptomatic cervical radiculopathy documented with both of the following:
    • Neurologic deficit at initial presentation, progressive numbness or weakness, or persistent radicular pain refractory to at least 6 weeks of conservative treatment (e.g., nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDS], oral corticosteroids, physical therapy) AND
    • Nerve root compression documented radiographically (e.g., computed tomography [CT] or magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]
  • Symptomatic cervical pseudarthrosis, documented radiographically, with all of the following are present:
    • The subsequent cervical spinal fusion is no less than 6 months after the initial fMisspelled Wordusion procedure
    • Persistent pain (with or without neurogenic symptoms) or severe or rapidly progressive symptoms of motor loss
    • Impairment or loss of function in individuals who had experienced significant interval relief of prior symptoms
  • Symptomatic spondylotic myelopathy, with or without kyphosis, and both of the following:
    • Individual has corresponding clinical symptoms (e.g., bowel or bladder incontinence, gait abnormality, frequent falls) and neurologic signs (e.g., hyperreflexia, increased tone or spasticity of lower and upper extremities) AND
    • Radiographic documentation of cord compression (e.g., CT, MRI, x-ray) due to either of the following:
      • Herniated nucleus pulposus OR
      • Osteophyte formation
  • Symptomatic nontraumatic cervical spondylosis with instability, documented radiographically, with either of the following:
    • Sagittal plane angulation of greater than 11 degrees between adjacent segments OR
    • Subluxation or translation of greater than 3.5 millimeters on static lateral views or dynamic radiographs
  • Degenerative cervical kyphosis with spondylosis causing cord compression
  • Degenerative spinal segment adjacent to prior decompression or fusion and either of the following:
    • Symptomatic myelopathy corresponding clinically to adjacent level OR
    • Symptomatic radiculopathy corresponding clinically to adjacent level and is unresponsive to nonoperative treatment
  • Infection of the cervical spine requiring decompression or debridement when vertebral body destruction or abscess is documented radiographically (e.g., MRI)
  • Nontraumatic atlantoaxial (i.e., C1-C2) instability, cord compression, or subluxation (i.e., greater than 5 millimeters documented radiographically [MRI]) with any of the following:
    • Connective tissue disorders (e.g., rheumatoid arthritis)
    • Down syndrome
    • Os​ odontoideum
    • Skeletal dysplasia (e.g., congenital abnormality of C1-C2)
  • Posttraumatic cervical instability (e.g., fracture, subluxation, dislocation, major posterior ligamentous instability) documented radiographically
  • Ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament, with or without kyphosis, associated with cervical stenosis or myelopathy
  • Spinal repair with fusion (e.g., as part of a stabilization procedure due to extensive surgery) performed in conjunction with other procedures (e.g., laminectomy) for abscess, dislocation, fracture, infection, neural decompression, or tumor
  • Tumor of the cervical spine causing cord compression, instability, or pathologic fracture documented radiographically (e.g., MRI)
  • Deformity or progressive neck pain following prior posterior cervical decompressive laminectomy or laminoplasty
NOT MEDICALLY NECESSARY
All other uses for cervical spinal fusion are considered not medically necessary and, therefore, not covered because the available published peer-reviewed literature does not support their use in the treatment of illness or injury.

LUMBAR SPINAL FUSION

MEDICALLY NECESSARY
Lumbar spinal fusion is considered medically necessary and, therefore, covered when any of the following criteria are met: 
  • Lumbar spinal stenosis with both of the following:
    • Any one of the following:
      • Associated spondylolisthesis demonstrated radiographically (e.g., x-rays)
      • Spinal instability (anterolisthesis) demonstrated radiographically
      • Spinal instability is anticipated due to a need for bilateral or wide decompression with facetectomy or resection of pars interarticularis AND
    • Either of the following:
      • Neurogenic claudication or radicular pain that results in significant functional impairment (e.g., documentation of inability or significantly decreased ability to perform normal activities of daily living) in individuals who have failed at least 3 months of conservative treatment (e.g., NSAIDS, oral corticosteroids, physical therapy) and has central/lateral recess/or foraminal stenosis on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT) or CT myelography performed within the past 6 months
      • Severe or rapidly progressive symptoms of motor loss (e.g., difficulty with walking or balance), neurogenic claudication, or cauda equina syndrome
  • SeverMisspelled Worde, progressive idiopathic scoliosis with either of the following:
    • Cobb angle greater than 40°
    • Spinal cord compression with neurogenic claudication or radicular pain that results in significant functional impairment in individuals who have failed at least 3 months of conservative treatment (e.g., NSAIDS, oral corticosteroids, physical therapy)
  • Severe degenerative scoliosis (i.e., lumbar or thoracolumbar) with both of the following:
    • Either of the following:
      • A minimum Cobb angle of 30°
      • Significant sagittal imbalance (e.g., sagittal vertical axis >5 cm) AND
    • Any one of the following:
      • Documented progression of deformity with persistent axial (i.e., nonradiating) pain and impairment or loss of function unresponsive to at least 12 months of conservative treatment (e.g., NSAIDS, oral corticosteroids, physical therapy)
      • Persistent and significant neurogenic symptoms (e.g., claudication or radicular pain) with impairment or loss of function, unresponsive to at least 12 months of conservative nonsurgical treatment (e.g., NSAIDS, oral corticosteroids, physical therapy)
      • Severe or rapidly progressive symptoms of motor loss, neurogenic claudication or cauda equina syndrome
  • IsthmMisspelled Wordic lumbar spondylolisthesis, when all of the following are present:
    • Congenital (i.e., Wiltse type I) or acquired pars defect (i.e., Wiltse II), documented radiographically
    • Persistent back pain (with or without neurogenic symptoms), with impairment or loss of function
    • Unresponsive to at least 3 months of conservative nonsurgical treatment (e.g., NSAIDS, oral corticosteroids, physical therapy) or with severe or rapidly progressive symptoms of motor loss, neurogenic claudication, or cauda equina syndrome
  • Lumbar sMisspelled Wordynovial cyst, when all of the following are present:
    • Radicular pain (with or without demonstrable neurologic deficits) or neurogenic claudication which has not responded to at least 6 weeks of conservative nonsurgical treatment
    • Documentation of a synovial cyst on CT or MRI performed within the past 6 months which correlates with symptoms and exam findings
  • Recurrent, same-level lumbar disc herniation, at least 3 months after previous disc surgery, when all of the following are present:
    • Recurrent neurogenic symptoms (e.g., radicular pain or claudication) or evidence of nerve-root irritation, as demonstrated by a positive nerve-root tension sign or positive femoral tension sign or a corresponding neurologic deficit
    • Impairment or loss of function
    • Unresponsive to at least 3 months of conservative nonsurgical treatment (e.g., NSAIDS, oral corticosteroids, physical therapy) or with severe or rapidly progressive symptoms of motor loss, neurogenic claudication, or cauda equina syndrome
    • Neural structurMisspelled Worde compression and instability documented radiographically at a level and side corresponding to the clinical symptoms
    • The individual experienced significant relief of symptoms following the procedure
  • Symptomatic lumbar pseudarthrosis, documented radiogMisspelled Wordraphically, when all of the following are present:
    • The subsequent lumbar spinal fusion is no less than 6 months after the initial fusion procedure
    • Persistent axial back pain (with or without neurogenic symptoms) or severe or rapidly progressive symptoms of motor loss, neurogenic claudication, or cauda equina syndrome
    • Recurrent symptMisspelled Wordoms or functional impairment has not responded to at least 3 months of conservative nonsurgical treatment following confirmation of the diagnosis
    • Impairment or loss of function in individuals who had experienced significant interval relief of prior symptoms
  • Instability of the lumbar spine due to any of the following conditions, where instability is caused by the condition, or when extensive surgery is required that could create an unstable spine:
    • Tumor of the spine or spinal canal
    • Infection (osteomyelitis, discitis, or spinal abscess)
    • Fracture or dislocation; may be traumatic or pathologic
    • Degenerative spondylolisthesis with flexion and extension lateral spine x-rays showing a fixed slip or movement of at least 3 mm.
  • Iatrogenic or degenerative flat back syndrome with significant sagittal imbalance, as demonstrated by a vertical axis greater than 5 cm, when lumbar spinal fusion is performed with spinal osteotomy or interbody spacers
  • Adjacent-Misspelled Wordlevel disease when all of the following are present:
    • Persistent back pain (with or without neurogenic symptoms) with impairment or loss of function that is unresponsive to at least 3 months of conservative treatment (e.g., NSAIDS, oral corticosteroids, physical therapy)
    • Eccentric disc space collapse, spondylolisthesis, acute single-level scoliosis, or lateral listhesis demonstrated radiographically
    • The previous lumbar spinal fusion resulted in significant relief for at least 6 months
EXPERIMENTAL/INVESTIGATIONAL
Lumbar spinal fusion is considered experimental/investigational and, therefore, not covered Misspelled Wordbecause the safety and/or effectiveness of this service cannot be established by review of the available published peer-reviewed literature for any of the following sole indications:
  • Disc herniation
  • Chronic nonspecific low back pain without radiculopathy
  • Degenerative disc disease
  • Initial discectomy/laminectomy for neural structure decompression
  • Facet syndrome
NOT MEDICALLY NECESSARY
Multiple-level lumbar spinal fusion is considered not medically necessary when the criteria listed above are not met for all levels because the available published peer-reviewed literature does not support their use in the treatment of illness or injury.

All other uses for lumbar spinal fusion are considered not medically necessary and, therefore, not covered because the available published peer-reviewed literature does not support their use in the treatment of illness or injury.

Guidelines

Persistent debilitating pain is defined as:
  • Significant level of pain on a daily basis defined on a visual analog scale (VAS; 0 to 10, representing increasing degree of pain) as greater than 4 AND
  • Pain on a daily basis that has a documented impact on activities of daily living in spite of optimal conservative nonsurgical therapy as outlined above and appropriate for the individual.
Conservative nonsurgical treatment typically includes all of the following:
  • Use of prescription strength analgesics for several weeks at a dose sufficient to induce a therapeutic response
    • Analgesics should include anti-inflammatory medications with or without adjunctive medications such as nerve membrane stabilizers or muscle relaxants
  • Participation in at least 6 weeks of a medically prescribed physical therapy program (including active exercise) or documentation of why the individual could not tolerate physical therapy
  • Evaluation and appropriate management of associated cognitive, behavioral, or addiction issues
  • Documentation of the individual's compliance with the preceding criteria.
Smoking within the previous 3 months is a contraindication for spinal fusion.

BENEFIT APPLICATION

Subject to the terms and conditions of the applicable benefit contract, spinal fusion is covered under the medical benefits of the Company's products when the medical necessity criteria listed in this medical policy are met.

However, services that are identified in this policy as experimental/investigational are not eligible for coverage or reimbursement by the Company.

Description

CERVICAL SPINAL FUSION

Conditions such as cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy may occur when spinal cord and/or nerves become compressed, particularly in older individuals. As the discs in the spine age, they may lose height and begin to bulge. They may also lose water content, begin to dry out, and become stiffer. This causes the vertebrae to move closer together. The body may respond to the collapsed disc by forming more bone (i.e., bone spurs) to strengthen the disc. This may contribute to spinal stiffness and pinched nerve roots. Symptoms may include pain in a radicular pattern in one or both upper extremities related to the compression and/or irritation of one or more cervical nerve roots. There may be varying degrees of sensory, motor, and reflex changes.

For individuals refractory to conservative treatment (e.g., nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs], physical therapy), cervical spinal fusion (i.e., arthrodesis) is a well-established surgical technique attempting to relieve spinal cord or nerve root pressure while stabilizing and eliminating the motion between the adjacent vertebral segments of the spine by fusing two or more cervical vertebrae. It is often performed in conjunction with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), during which a cervical herniated or degenerative disc may be removed or decompressed, while fusion is performed to stabilize the cervical segment.

PEER-REVIEWED LITERATURE
In a retrospective study, Faldini et al. (2010) evaluated the safety and effectiveness of ACDF for the treatment of segmental cervical degenerative pathology. Fifty-one individuals affected by single-level cervical degenerative pathology were followed for a minimum of 10 years, and were treated between C4 and C7. Outcome measurements included the visual analog scale (VAS; increasing measure of pain) and neck disability index (NDI; increasing measure of disability). At final follow-up, the outcomes were rated according to Odom criteria (i.e., scale from Excellent to Poor based on symptom improvement). On radiographs, the sagittal segmental alignment (SSA) of the affected level and the sagittal alignment of the cervical spine (SACS) were assessed. Average NDI improved from 34 preoperatively to 11 at last follow-up; average VAS improved from 7 preoperatively to 1 at final follow-up. According to Odom criteria, the outcome was considered excellent in 18 cases, good in 22, and fair in 11. Degenerative changes at the adjacent levels were observed in 35.3% of individuals (n=18). The authors concluded that ACDF was a safe and effective technique for treating segmental cervical degenerative pathology, with good clinical outcomes at long-term follow-up. The study is limited in its lack of comparative controls.

In a retrospective study, Chen et al. (2011) compared the surgical outcomes of anterior or posterior cervical fusion for the treatment of multilevel severe ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL). A total of 75 individuals with multilevel severe OPLL were included in the study, with 22 individuals undergoing anterior cervical fusion, 28 undergoing posterior cervical fusion with laminectomy, and 25 undergoing posterior cervical fusion and laminoplasty. Surgical outcomes were assessed radiographically and using the Japanese Orthopedic Association scoring system (JOA; score of 0 to 17, with lower scores indicating more severe deficits). There was a statistically significant improvement in neurologic function of the postoperative JOA after anterior cervical fusion when compared to posterior cervical fusion. The posterior approach had a higher incidence of C5 palsy and axial pain. The authors concluded that anterior cervical fusion was significantly more effective for multilevel severe OPLL when compared with posterior laminoplasty in the cervical spine. The study is limited in its retrospective study design, lack of comparisons to conservative treatment, and heterogeneous treatment design.

In a literature review, Song and Choi (2014) evaluated the available published evidence on ACDF. They noted that it has been established as a safe and effective procedure for degenerative cervical spinal disease unresponsive to conservative management and outstanding results have been reported in the literature. To increase fusion rates and decrease complications, numerous graft materials, cage, and anterior plating have been developed. The use of cervical plates in ACDF has also been proposed as having a theoretical advantage of reducing adjacent segment disease by maintaining cervical lordosis.

GUIDELINES
In 2010, the North American Spine Society (NASS) developed evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of cervical radiculopathy. They provided a grade B recommendation (i.e., fair evidence based on level II or III studies with consistent findings) for surgical intervention for cervical radiculopathy from degenerative disorders when compared to conservative medical or interventional management. They also noted that both anterior cervical discectomy and ACDF were comparable treatment strategies producing similar outcomes for the treatment of single-level cervical radiculopathy (grade B recommendation). 

In 2016, the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) published practice guidelines on cervical and thoracic spine disorders. They provided consensus-based recommendations, noting that for radicular pain syndromes, ACDF was recommended in individuals with chronic radiculopathy due to ongoing nerve root compression, with persistent and debilitating pain, refractory to at least 6 weeks of nonoperative therapy. Decompressive surgery, including discectomy with fusion, was recommended for individuals with myelopathy.

LUMBAR SPINAL FUSION

Low back pain (i.e., lumbago) is a common condition with a lifetime prevalence estimated at 60% to 90% in industrialized countries. It typically involves the muscles and bones of the back, although in many episodes of lumbago, a specific underlying cause is unidentified. Acute lumbago is classified as pain lasting less than 6 weeks. It may be experienced as aching, burning, stabbing, sharp, or dull pain, with intensity ranging from mild to severe. The pain may radiate into one or both buttocks, or even into the thigh and hip region. In most cases of acute lumbago, diagnostic imaging is not required. Symptoms typically resolve with conservative treatment, which often consists of NSAIDs, physical therapy, and rest. However, for individuals with chronic lumbago (i.e., pain lasting >3 months), surgical treatment is often considered.

Lumbar spinal fusion is a surgical technique that involves the fusion of two or more lumbar vertebrae using local bone, autologous bone taken from the iliac crest of the individual, allogeneic donor bone, or bone graft substitutes. In preparation for the procedure, a layer of bone from the affected spinal column is removed and bone grafts are placed over the now-exposed surface of the spinal column. As healing occurs, the bone grafts will fuse across the intervertebral space (e.g., disc or facet joint spaces). Fusion of the lumbar spine can be approached from an anterior, lateral, or posterior direction. Anterior or posterior lumbar interbody fusion is traditionally performed with an open approach (i.e., long incision with wide retraction of the musculature), but can also be performed through minimally invasive procedures.

Lumbar fusion is most commonly performed when it is used to stabilize an unstable spine or to correct deformity. Symptoms for individuals who do not have neurologic deficits will typically resolve with conservative treatment. However, individuals who present with sensory changes, muscle weakness, or cauda equina syndrome may progressively decline in function. Scoliosis, an abnormal lateral and rotation curvature of the vertebral column, can result in severe deformity that is associated with lumbago in adulthood and may lead to compromised respiratory function if uncorrected. Various practice guidelines also note that lumbar fusion is accepted for the treatment of spinal infections and tumors. The primary focus of treatment of a spinal infection is to address impending neurological deficits from progressive deformity or expanding infections. Additionally, the removal of soft-tissue tumors often requires techniques that may result in spinal destabilization.

Lumbar fusion is also used to treat pain or discomfort caused by a synovial cyst. A synovial cyst is a benign condition that can cause spinal stenosis in the lumbar spine. Synovial cysts develop as a result of degeneration in the facet joint in the lumbar spine. It is typically a process that only happens in the lumbar spine, and it almost always develops at the L4-L5 level (rarely at L3-L4). The most reliable treatment method for a synovial cyst is to remove the cyst and then fuse the joint. Fusing the joint stops all the motion at that level of the spine, and without any motion, the cyst should not regenerate.

Lumbar fusion is more controversial when performed in individuals without neurologic deficits or spinal instability (e.g., scoliosis, spondylolisthesis). In the United States, there is wide variation in the rates of lumbar spinal fusion, with many experts considering the procedure to be overused. These experts cite a need for better standardization and uniformity in the application of the procedure. For example, lumbar fusion is frequently performed in combination with discectomy or laminectomy when these procedures do not result in spinal instability. It has also been performed for degenerative disc disease (DDD) as a sole indication. DDD is an age-related condition resulting in discogenic back pain and consists of morphologic changes in the lumbar motion segment. Most degenerative changes are asymptomatic. A large number of lumbar fusion procedures are being performed for nonspecific low back pain when defined indications for fusion are not present. Nonspecific chronic low back pain is persistent low back pain that is not attributable to a recognizable, known specific pathology such as infection, tumor, osteoporosis, structural deformity (e.g., spondylolisthesis, scoliosis), inflammatory disorder, radiculitis, or cauda equina syndrome.

Lumbar foraminotomy and laminotomy involve removal of a portion of the bony arch, or lamina, on the dorsal surface of a vertebra. These are typically performed to access the disc space and relieve pressure on the nerve roots and spinal cord.

PEER-REVIEWED LITERATURE
In a long-term retrospective comparative study, Danielsson and Nachemson (2001) evaluated 156 individuals with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis who underwent fusion using Harrington rods and 127 individuals who were treated with brace. Of these individuals, 252 attended a clinical and radiologic follow-up assessment by an unbiased observer. Ninety-one percent of the surgical treatment group and 87% of the brace treatment group were assessed, with a mean follow-up time of 23 years and 22 years, respectively. Outcome measurements included curve size as measured by the Cobb method and occurrence of any degenerative changes or complications. The deterioration of the curves was 3.5 degrees for all the surgically treated curves and 7.9 degrees for all the brace-treated curves, representing a statistically significant difference (P<0.001). Five individuals, all within the brace group, had a curve increase of 20 degrees of more. The overall complication rate after surgery was low, with pseudoarthrosis occurring in three individuals and flat back syndrome developing in four. Five percent of individuals (n=8) treated with fusion underwent additional curve-related surgical procedures. The authors concluded that although more than 20 years had passed since the completion of surgical treatment of scoliosis with fusion, most of the curves did not increase and the complication rate was low.

In a multicenter controlled trial from 13 centers in the United States (Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial [SPORT]), Weinstein et al. (2009) compared the safety and effectiveness of nonsurgical conservative treatment with standard decompressive laminectomy with or without fusion. Ninety-five percent of individuals underwent decompression with lumbar fusion. There were two cohorts in the SPORT study, with 304 individuals enrolled in a randomized cohort with an intent-to-treat design and 303 individuals enrolled in an observational cohort. Surgical candidates were participants with symptoms of at least 12 week's duration as well as radiographically confirmed degenerative spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. Primary outcome measurements included the Short Form-36 (SF-36) bodily pain and physical function scores and the modified Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and yearly up to 4 years. At 4 year follow-up, 54% of individuals randomly assigned to nonsurgical treatment underwent surgery. The authors found that previously reported clinically relevant advantages of surgery at 2-year follow-up were maintained at 4 years, with treatment effects of 15.3 (95% CI, 11–19.7) for bodily pain, 18.9 (95% CI, 14.8–23) for physical function, and −14.3 (95% CI, −17.5 to −11.1) for the ODI. They concluded that, compared with individuals who received nonsurgical treatment, individuals with degenerative spondylolisthesis and associated spinal stenosis who received surgical treatment maintained substantially greater pain relief and improvement at up to 4 years. The study is limited in its heterogeneous treatment design.

In a randomized controlled trial (RCT), Fritzell et al. (2001) compared lumbar spinal fusion with nonsurgical treatment in individuals with severe chronic lumbago. A total of 294 individuals with lumbago for at least 2 years and radiologic evidence of disc degeneration at L4-L5, L5-S1, or both were randomly assigned into four treatment groups. The surgical treatment group (n=222) included three different fusion techniques, although they were not analyzed separately in this study. Individuals in the nonsurgical treatment group (n=72) were treated with different types of physical therapy. Study participants suffered from low back pain for a mean of 7.8 and 8.5 years, respectively. Outcome measurements included VAS to measure pain and ODI. Ninety-eight percent of all study participants (n=289) were assessed at 2-year follow-up. Back pain was reduced in the surgical group by 33%, compared with 7% in the nonsurgical group, representing a statistically significant difference (P<0.0002). Pain improved mostly during the first 6 months and then gradually deteriorated. Disability measured by ODI was reduced by 25% and 6%, respectively (P=0.015). The early complication rate in the surgical group was 17%. A statistically significantly greater number of individuals treated with surgery returned to work (36% vs. 13%) and reported an outcome as better or much better (63% vs. 29%). The authors concluded that lumbar fusion was a well-informed treatment and in select individuals with severe chronic lumbago, fusion may diminish pain and decrease disability more efficiently than nonsurgical treatment. The study is limited in its heterogeneous treatment design and relatively mid-term follow-up period.

In a multicenter RCT from the English Spine Stabilisation Trial Group, Fairbank et al. (2005) evaluated the clinical effectiveness of lumbar fusion compared with intensive rehabilitation for individuals with chronic low back pain. A total of 349 participants with chronic lumbago with at least a year's duration were assigned to surgery (n=176) or rehabilitation for approximately 75 hours (n=173). Eighty-one percent of participants (n=284) were assessed at 2-year follow-up. Primary outcome measurements included ODI and a shuttle walking test. The mean ODI changed from 46.5 to 34 in the surgery group and 44.8 to 36.1 in the rehabilitation group, with an estimated mean difference of −4.1 (P=0.045). There were no statistically significant differences between the treatment groups in the shuttle walking test or any other outcome measurements. The authors concluded that both groups reported reductions in disability at 2-year follow-up and that it may be possibly unrelated to both interventions, as the statistical difference between treatment groups was marginal and only just reached the predefined minimal clinical difference. It was recommended that the potential risk of surgery be considered in addition to noting that there was no clear evidence that lumbar spinal fusion was any more beneficial than intensive rehabilitation. The study is limited in its relatively mid-term follow-up period.

In a 4-year follow-up study of two RCTs, Brox et al. (2010) compared the long-term effectiveness of lumbar fusion with nonsurgical treatment in individuals with chronic lumbago. A total of 124 individuals with DDD and at least 1 year of symptoms were evaluated from two previous RCTs. The main outcome measurement was ODI. At 4-year follow-up, 24% of individuals (n=14) assigned to nonsurgical treatment (e.g., cognitive intervention and exercise) underwent surgery. Additionally, 23% of individuals (n=15) assigned to fusion had undergone re-surgery. The mean treatment effect for ODI was 1.1 (95% CI, −5.9 to 8.2) according to the intent-to-treat analysis, and −1.6 (CI, −8.9 to 5.6) in the as-treated analysis, representing no statistically significant difference between the surgical and nonsurgical groups. There was no difference in return to work. The authors concluded that long-term improvement was not improved after fusion when compared with nonsurgical treatment. The study is limited in its heterogeneous design, relatively small sample size, and high percentage of cross-over.

In a RCT, Ohtori et al. (2011) compared discectomy and fusion with walking and stretching in 41 individuals with discogenic lumbago without radiculopathy for at least 2 years. The study participants were randomly assigned to a minimal treatment group (n=20) or a fusion group (n=21), of which the majority were performed with anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF; n=15) or posterolateral fusion (PLF; n=6) if the anterior approach was technically difficult due to blood vessel anatomy. Outcome measurements included VAS pain and ODI. At 2-year follow-up there were improvements for all groups, with the two surgical groups having a statistically significantly better outcome. VAS pain scores improved from 7.7 to 4.7 in the minimal treatment group, 7.4 to 1.3 in the ALIF group, and 6.5 to 3.5 in the PLF group. The study is limited in its relatively small sample size, midterm follow-up period, and the minimal treatment provided to the conservative therapy group.

In a follow-up study of three RCTs, Mannion et al. (2013) compared the clinical outcomes of individuals randomly assigned to either spinal fusion or multidisciplinary cognitive-behavioral and exercise rehabilitation for chronic lumbago. A total of 473 individuals with lumbago of at least 1 year's duration were evaluated at a mean of 11.4 years [8 to 15] after initial treatment. The primary outcome measurement was ODI. Secondary outcomes included VAS pain intensity, pain frequency, medication use, and work status. Of the 473 enrolled participants, 55% completed long-term follow-up, representing 140 individuals in the surgical group and 121 in the rehabilitation group. Intent-to-treat analyses indicated no statistically or clinically significant differences between treatment groups for ODI scores at long-term follow-up. The results for secondary outcomes were consistent with the ODI as well, revealing no relevant group differences. The authors concluded that at an average of 11 years follow-up, there was no difference in participant self-reported outcomes between fusion and multidisciplinary cognitive-behavioral and exercise rehabilitation for chronic lumbago. Given the increased risks of surgery and the lack of deterioration in nonoperative outcomes over time, the authors noted that the use of lumbar fusion in individuals with chronic lumbago should not be favored when rehabilitation programs are available. The study is limited in its heterogeneous design and high loss to follow-up.

In a systematic review, Andrade et al. (2013) evaluated the body of literature involving individuals with chronic nonspecific lumbago to further define the role for lumbar fusion surgery. The authors identified 33 technical RCTs (i.e., comparisons between different surgical techniques, adjuncts, or procedures) and six indication RCTs (i.e., evaluation of the effectiveness of surgical treatment vs. nonsurgical treatment), representing 3790 and 981 study participants, respectively. Of the technical studies, types of instrumentation (13 studies; 1332 participants), bone graft materials (11 studies; 833 participants), and disc arthroplasty compared with fusion (five studies; 1337 participants) were the most common comparative studies performed. The authors concluded that the objectives for RCTs evaluating lumbar fusion in individuals with chronic nonspecific lumbago have not changed substantially in the last 20 years. The majority of studies appear to assess variation in surgical technique rather than clarifying what, if any, indications for surgery exist for individuals with chronic nonspecific lumbago. As a result, the authors noted that clinicians have little evidence regarding surgical intervention for chronic nonspecific lumbago.

In a meta-analysis, Saltychev et al. (2013) compared the clinical effectiveness of lumbar fusion with conservative treatment to treat individuals with chronic lumbago. Meta-analysis was conducted on the basis of a systematic review with research quality grading according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Controlled studies were included if study participants had a history of chronic lumbago due to DDD and had been treated with lumbar fusion. Studies were also included if they compared fusion to conservative treatment. The primary outcome measurement was ODI, with a minimal clinically significant difference in ODI of 10 points. Analysis included four RCTs, representing 666 study participants. ODI score was reduced in both the fusion and conservative treatment groups, with a mean reduction in ODI of −2.91 (95% CI, −6.66 to 0.84) in favor of fusion at a mean follow-up of 1.5 years. However, the difference between the groups was statistically and clinically insignificant. The authors concluded that there was strong evidence that lumbar fusion was not more effective than conservative treatment in reducing perceived disability for individuals with chronic lumbago due to DDD. They also noted that further research on the subject would be unlikely to considerably affect such a conclusion.

GUIDELINES
In 2005, the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) provided a series of recommendations for lumbar fusion procedures. Specific to one- or two-level DDD without stenosis or spondylolisthesis, AANS recommended lumbar spinal fusion in carefully selected individuals. They did not recommend the procedure as a treatment standard for individuals with disc herniation causing radiculopathy, although they did note that it may be recommended as an adjunct in individuals with preoperative lumbar spinal deformity and instability.

In 2006, the Medicare Evidence Development and Coverage Advisory Committee was convened to provide recommendations on the quality and strength of evidence regarding the safety and effectiveness of lumbar spinal fusion for chronic lumbago secondary to DDD. This was primarily based on an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) technology assessment evaluating the treatment of DDD affecting the lumbar spine. AHRQ noted that with respect to axial back pain due to isolated DDD without spinal instability, four RCTs failed to demonstrate clinically meaningful improvements in disability indices for spinal fusion when compared to rehabilitation. They concluded that the evidence for lumbar spinal fusion did not conclusively demonstrate short- or long-term benefits compared with nonsurgical treatment, especially when considering individuals with DDD as a sole indication.

In 2009, the American Pain Society (APS) published clinical practice guidelines regarding interventional therapies, surgery, and interdisciplinary rehabilitation for lumbago. APS provided a strong recommendation for intensive interdisciplinary rehabilitation with a cognitive and behavioral emphasis in individuals with nonradicular lumbago. A weak recommendation was provided for clinicians to discuss the risks and benefits of surgery as an option for individuals with nonradicular lumbago and common degenerative spinal changes.

In 2009, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published clinical guidelines on the early management of persistent, nonspecific lumbago. NICE recommended that for individuals who had completed a combined physical and psychological treatment program and have refractory, severe, nonspecific lumbago, referral for spinal fusion be considered. However, NICE did not provide recommendations on specific indications for which spinal fusion should be considered.

In 2014, the North American Spine Society (NASS) developed evidence-based recommendations for lumbar fusion. NASS noted that lumbar fusion may be indicated with specific criteria for infection, tumor, traumatic injuries, and stenosis when spinal deformity or instability was present. Additionally, disc herniations were recommended as an adjunct to disc excision for individuals with recurrent disc herniation present at L5-S1 or for which facet resection was necessary to retrieve the disc. NASS provided recommendations with specific criteria for discogenic low back pain secondary to DDD, although they did not recommend lumbar fusion for discogenic back pain in individuals with significant psychiatric disorders, smoking, or presence of advanced multilevel DDD. Lumbar fusion was also not recommended for disc herniations or stenosis in the absence of instability or spondylolisthesis.

OSTEOTOMY AND CORPECTOMY

  • Osteotomy: Spinal osteotomy procedures are reported when a portion or portions of the vertebral segment or segments is (are) cut and removed in preparation for realigning the spine as part of a spinal deformity correction. These procedures may be required for congenital, developmental, and degenerative spinal deformities.
  • Corpectomy: Corpectomy typically reflects a longitudinal resection of the vertebral body from disc space to disc space, often resulting in a destabilization of the complex. In the cervical spine, at least 50% of the vertebral body is removed and in the thoracic/lumbar spine, at least 30% of the corpus is removed.
SUMMARY

CERVICAL SPINAL FUSION
For individuals who have persistent or progressive symptoms of cervical radiculopathy or myelopathy despite conservative treatment, cervical spinal fusion has been well-established as a surgical technique to relieve spinal cord or nerve root pressure while stabilizing the spine. In addition to its evaluation for a variety of indications including, but not limited to, spondylosis, os odontoideum, cervical instability, and OPLL, the majority of more recent literature compares different approaches and techniques associated with cervical fusion. There are also numerous studies that exist comparing artificial intervertebral disc replacement to conventional anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Based on the available literature and relevant published guidelines, cervical spinal fusion appears to be effective in improving outcomes among individuals with persistent and debilitating functional status due to spinal cord compression and instability, refractory to conservative nonsurgical management.

LUMBAR SPINAL FUSION
Lumbar spinal fusion (arthrodesis) is a surgical technique that involves fusing two or more lumbar vertebrae using local bone, autologous bone taken from the iliac crest of the patient, allogeneic donor bone, or bone graft substitutes. There are numerous potential indications for lumbar spinal fusion. Spinal fusion can be performed as a single procedure or in conjunction with other spinal surgeries. For example, lumbar spinal fusion can be performed in combination with discectomy for either herniated discs or degenerative disc disease, or in combination with decompression surgery of the spinal canal for spinal stenosis.

For individuals with spinal stenosis who are undergoing decompression surgery and receive lumbar spinal fusion, the evidence includes three small RCTs. Relevant outcomes are symptoms, functional outcomes, quality of life, resource utilization, and treatment-related morbidity. Two RCTs published in 2016 compared decompression surgery plus fusion with decompression surgery alone. These trials reached different conclusions about the benefit of adding fusion to decompression, one specifically in patients with low-grade (0%–25% slippage) spondylolisthesis and one in patients with lumbar stenosis with or without spondylolisthesis. Both trials reported a larger number of operative and perioperative adverse outcomes with the addition of fusion. The third trial, a small trial conducted in Japan, also found no difference in lower back pain or leg pain scores between laminectomy alone and laminectomy plus posterolateral fusion in patients with one-level spinal stenosis and grade 1 spondylolisthesis. About 40% of the patients also had dynamic instability. In patients with spinal stenosis and grade 1 spondylolisthesis and without instability, the evidence does not support routine addition of fusion to decompression surgery. The Swedish Spinal Stenosis Study (SSSS) included patients who did not have spondylolisthesis. The addition of fusion to laminectomy resulted in similar patient-reported outcomes, longer operating time, more bleeding, higher surgical costs, and longer hospitalization but did not result in better functional disability and pain scores. In patients with spinal stenosis and no spondylolisthesis who receive decompression, the evidence suggests that routine fusion is not better than decompression alone. The evidence is insufficient to determine the effects of the technology on health outcomes.


For individuals with juvenile or adolescent idiopathic scoliosis who undergo lumbar spinal fusion, the evidence includes observational studies reporting outcomes in adults who received lumbar spinal fusion as adolescents. Relevant outcomes are symptoms, functional outcomes, quality of life, resource utilization, and treatment-related morbidity. These observational studies do not provide evidence of the comparative effectiveness of spinal fusion to other interventions. Furthermore, because a goal of conservative treatment is to avoid fusion surgery, such comparisons would not be appropriate. They do suggest that, among patients who are referred for surgery, outcomes in adulthood are similar to those observed in patients who received bracing or no treatment. Limitations of this evidence include recall bias and the use of procedures that are not currently used. The evidence is insufficient to determine the effects of the technology on health outcomes.


For individuals who have adult degenerative scoliosis who undergo lumbar spinal fusion, the evidence includes a prospective comparative cohort study, which evaluated outcomes in adults with symptomatic scoliosis who were treated with spinal fusion surgery or nonoperatively. Relevant outcomes are symptoms, functional outcomes, quality of life, resource utilization, and treatment-related morbidity. Although the surgically treated group had better outcomes than the conservatively managed group, there was potential bias in this study due to the self-selection of treatment and high loss to follow-up in the conservatively managed group. The evidence is insufficient to determine the effects of the technology on health outcomes.


For individuals who have isthmic spondylolisthesis who undergo lumbar spinal fusion, the evidence includes one RCT. Relevant outcomes are symptoms, functional outcomes, quality of life, resource utilization, and treatment-related morbidity. The RCT identified compared fusion with an exercise program for patients who had symptomatic isthmic spondylolisthesis. Functional outcomes and pain relief were significantly better after fusion surgery. Results of this trial support the use of fusion for this condition but should be corroborated in a larger number of patients. The evidence is insufficient to determine the effects of the technology on health outcomes.


For individuals who have spinal fracture and undergo lumbar spinal fusion, the evidence includes RCTs and meta-analyses of RCTs. Relevant outcomes are symptoms, functional outcomes, quality of life, resource utilization, and treatment-related morbidity. Results of a small RCT indicated that spinal fusion for patients with spinal fracture without instability or neural compression might result in worse outcomes than nonsurgical management. The evidence is insufficient to determine the effects of the technology on health outcomes.


For individuals who have lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy who are undergoing discectomy who receive lumbar spinal fusion, the evidence includes observational studies. Relevant outcomes are symptoms, functional outcomes, quality of life, resource utilization, and treatment-related morbidity. In patients with lumbar radiculopathy with herniated disc who receive discectomy, the evidence does not support the routine use of fusion as an adjunct to discectomy. The evidence is insufficient to determine the effects of the technology on health outcomes.


For individuals who have chronic low back pain without radiculopathy who undergo lumbar spinal fusion, the evidence includes RCTs and meta-analyses of RCTs. Relevant outcomes are symptoms, functional outcomes, quality of life, resource utilization, and treatment-related morbidity. In most patients with chronic or persistent low back pain who do not have neurogenic leg pain, fusion surgery has little or no net benefit. Clinical trials have not used clear criteria for diagnosing "discogenic" pain, which may contribute to mixed results. The evidence is insufficient to determine the effects of the technology on health outcomes.


Clinical input supports the use of lumbar spinal fusion under conditions of spinal deformity or instability, including stenosis with spondylolisthesis and recurrent disc herniation. Based on the results of clinical vetting, spinal fusion combined with decompression surgery may be considered medically necessary when conservative treatment has failed in patients with severe scoliosis, stenosis plus spondylolisthesis, or recurrent disc herniation.

References

Aarabi B, Hadley MN, Dhall SS, et al. Management of acute traumatic central cord syndrome (ATCCS). Neurosurgery. 2013;72 (2 Suppl):195-204.

Aarabi B, Mirvis S, Shanmuganathan K, et al. Comparative effectiveness of surgical versus nonoperative management of unilateral, nondisplaced, subaxial cervical spine facet fractures without evidence of spinal cord injury: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014;20(3):270-277.

Acosta FL, Chin CT, Quinones-Hinojosa A, et al. Diagnosis and management of adult pyogenic osteomyelitis of the cervical spine. Neurosurg Focus. 2004;17(6):E2.


Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Technology Assessment Spinal fusion for treatment of degenerative disease affecting the lumbar spine. 2006. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK299153/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK299153.pdf. Accessed October 16, 2024.


Ahmed R, Traynelis VC, Menezes AH. Fusions at the craniovertebral junction. Childs Nerv Syst. 2008;24(10):1209-1224.

Albert TJ, Murrell SE. Surgical management of cervical radiculopathy. J Am Acad Orthop Surg.1999;7(6):368-376.

Allen RT, Rihn JA, Glassman SD, et al. An evidence-based approach to spine surgery. Am J Med Qual. 2009;24(6 Suppl):15S-24S.


American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM). Cervical and Thoracic Spine Disorders. 2016. Available at: https://www.dir.ca.gov/dwc/MTUS/ACOEM-Guidelines/Cervical-and-Thoracic-Spine-Disorders-Guideline.pdf. Accessed October 16, 2024.

Andrade NS, Flynn JP, Bartanusz V. Twenty-year perspective of randomized controlled trials for surgery of chronic nonspecific low back pain: citation bias and tangential knowledge. Spine J. 2013;13(11):1698-1704.

Arvin B, Fournier-Gosselin MP, Fehlings MG. Os odontoideum: etiology and surgical management. Neurosurgery. 2010;66(3 Suppl):22-31.

Bambakidis NC, Feiz-Erfan I, Klopfenstein JD, Sonntag VK. Indications for surgical fusion of the cervical and lumbar motion segment. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(16 Suppl):S2-S6.

Bono CM, Ghiselli G, Gilbert TJ, et al. North American Spine Society. An evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of cervical radiculopathy from degenerative disorders. Spine J. 2011;11(1):64-72.

Bridwell KH, Glassman S, Horton W, et al. Does treatment (nonoperative and operative) improve the two-year quality of life in patients with adult symptomatic lumbar scoliosis: a prospective multicenter evidence-based medicine study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(20):2171-2178.

Brox JI, Nygaard OP, Holm I, et al. Four-year follow-up of surgical versus non-surgical therapy for chronic low back pain. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010;69(9):1643-1648.

Bydon M, Xu R, Macki M, et al. Adjacent segment disease after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in a large series. Neurosurgery. 2014;74(2):139-146.

Carrier CS, Bono, CM, Lebl DR. Evidence-based analysis of adjacent segment degeneration and disease after ACDF: a systematic review. Spine J. 2013;13(10):1370-1378.

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Spinal Fusion for the Treatment of Low Back Pain Secondary to Lumbar Degenerative Disc Disease. 2006. Available at: http://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/details/technology-assessments-details.aspx?TAId=41. Accessed October 16, 2024.

Chen Y, Guo Y, Lu X, et al. Surgical strategy for multilevel severe ossification of posterior longitudinal ligament in the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2011;24(1):24-30.

Choi BY, Song KJ, Chang H. Ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: a review of literature. Asian Spine J. 2011;5(4):267-276.

Chou R, Loeser JD, Owens DK, et al. Interventional therapies, surgery, and interdisciplinary rehabilitation for low back pain: an evidence-based clinical practice guideline from the American Pain Society. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(10):1066-1077.

Coyne TJ, Fehlings MG, Wallace MC, et al. C1-C2 posterior cervical fusion: long-term evaluation of results and efficacy. Neurosurgery. 1995;37(4):688-692; discussion 692-693.

Cunningham MR, Hershman S, Bendo J. Systematic review of cohort studies comparing surgical treatments for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(5):537-543.

Danielsson AJ, Nachemson AL. Radiologic findings and curve progression 22 years after treatment for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: comparison of brace and surgical treatment with matching control group of straight individuals. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001;26(5):516-525.

Dohrmann GJ, Hsieh JC. Long-term results of anterior versus posterior operations for herniated cervical discs: analysis of 6,000 patients. Med Princ Pract. 2014;23(1):70-73.

Dvorak MF, Fisher CG, Aarabi B, et al. Clinical outcomes of 90 isolated unilateral facet fractures, subluxations, and dislocations treated surgically and nonoperatively. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(26):3007-3013.

Elliott RE, Tanweer O, Boah A, et al. Outcome comparison of atlantoaxial fusion with transarticular screws and screw-rod constructs: meta-analysis and review of literature. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2014;27(1):11-28.

Fairbank J, Frost H, Wilson-MacDonald J, et al. Randomised controlled trial to compare surgical stabilisation of the lumbar spine with an intensive rehabilitation programme for patients with chronic low back pain: the MRC spine stabilisation trial. BMJ. 2005;330(7502):1233.

Faldini C, Leonetti D, Nanni M, et al. Cervical disc herniation and cervical spondylosis surgically treated by Cloward procedure: a 10-year minimum follow-up study. J Orthop Traumatol. 2010;11:99-103.

Fehlings MG, David KS, Vialle L, et al. Decision making in the surgical treatment of cervical spine metastases. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34(22 Suppl):S108-S117.


Försth P, Ólafsson G, Carlsson T, et al. A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Fusion Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(15):1413-1423.

Fountas KN, Kapsalaki EZ, Nikolakakos LG, et al. Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion associated complications. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007;32(21):2310-2317.

Fritzell P, Hagg O, Wessberg P, et al. 2001 Volvo Award Winner in Clinical Studies: Lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain: a multicenter randomized controlled trial from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001;26(23):2521-32; discussion 32-4.

Gebremariam L, Koes BW, Peul WC, Huisstede BM. Evaluation of treatment effectiveness for the herniated cervical disc: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(2):E109-E118.

Geck MJ, Eismont FJ. Surgical options for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Orthop Clin North Am. 2002;33(2):329-348.

Ghogawala Z, Martin B, Benzel EC, et al. Comparative effectiveness of ventral vs dorsal surgery for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Neurosurgery. 2011;68(3):622-630; discussion 630-631.

Hadjipavlou AG, Mader JT, Necessary JT, Muffoletto AJ. Hematogenous pyogenic spinal infections and their surgical management. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(13):1668-1679.

Han YC, Liu ZQ, Wang SJ, et al. Is anterior cervical discectomy and fusion superior to corpectomy and fusion for treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy? A systemic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9(1):e87191.

Hankinson TC, Anderson RC. Craniovertebral junction abnormalities in Down syndrome. Neurosurgery. 2010;66(3 Suppl):32-38.

Herkowitz HN, Kurz LT, Overholt DP. Surgical management of cervical soft disc herniation. A comparison between the anterior and posterior approach. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).1990;15(10):1026-1030.

Herkowitz HN, Kurz LT. Degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis with spinal stenosis. A prospective study comparing decompression with decompression and intertransverse process arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am.1991;73(6):802-808.

Hirai T, Okawa A, Arai Y, et al. Middle-term results of a prospective comparative study of anterior decompression with fusion and posterior decompression with laminoplasty for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36(23):1940-1947.

Hong JT, Yi JS, Kim JT, et al. Clinical and radiologic outcome of laminar screw at C2 and C7 for posterior instrumentation--review of 25 cases and comparison of C2 and C7 intralaminar screw fixation. World Neurosurg. 2010;73(2):112-118; discussion e15.

Iwasaki M, Okuda S, Miyauchi A, et al. Surgical strategy for cervical myelopathy due to ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament. Part 2. Advantages of anterior decompression and fusion over laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2007; 32(6):654-660.

Jacobson ME, Khan SN, An HS. C1-C2 posterior fixation: indications, technique, and results. Orthop Clin North Am. 2012;43(1):11-8, vii.

Koakutsu T, Morozumi N, Ishii Y, et al. Anterior decompression and fusion versus laminoplasty for cervical myelopathy caused by soft disc herniation: a prospective multicenter study. J Orthop Sci. 2010;15(1):71-78.

Komotar RJ, Mocco J, Kaiser MG. Surgical management of cervical myelopathy: indications and techniques for laminectomy and fusion. Spine J. 2006;6(6 Suppl):252S-267S.

Krauss WE, Bledsoe JM, Clarke MJ, et al. Rheumatoid arthritis of the craniovertebral junction. Neurosurgery. 2010;66(3 Suppl):83-95.

Kreiner DS, Hwang SW, Easa JE, et al. An evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy. Spine J. 2014;14(1):180-191.

Kreiner DS, Shaffer WO, Baisden JL, et al. An evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (update). Spine J. 2013;13(7):734-743.

Kwon BK, Fisher CG, Boyd MC, et al. A prospective randomized controlled trial of anterior compared with posterior stabilization for unilateral facet injuries of the cervical spine. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;7(1):1-12.

Kwon BK, Vaccaro AR, Grauer JN, et al. Subaxial cervical spine trauma. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2006;14(2):78-89.

Lawrence BD, Brodke DS. Posterior surgery for cervical myelopathy: indications, techniques, and outcomes. Orth Clin North Am. 2012;43(1):29-40, vii-viii.

Lehmann CL, Buchowski JM, Stoker GE, Riew KD. Neurologic recovery after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. Global spine J. 2014;4(1):41-46.

Mannion AF, Brox JI, Fairbank JC. Comparison of spinal fusion and nonoperative treatment in patients with chronic low back pain: long-term follow-up of three randomized controlled trials. Spine J. 2013;13(11):1438-1448.

Matz PG, Pritchard PR, Hadley MN. Anterior cervical approach for the treatment of cervical myelopathy. Neurosurgery. 2007;60(1 Supp1 1):S64-S70.

McAnany SJ, Baird EO, Overley SC, et al. A meta-analysis of the clinical and fusion results following treatment of symptomatic cervical pseudarthrosis. Global Spine J. 2015;5(2):148-55.

Miller J, Gross A, D'Sylva J, et al. Manual therapy and exercise for neck pain: a systematic review. Man Ther. 2010;15(4):334-354.

Mizuno J, Nakagawa H. Ossified posterior longitudinal ligament: management strategies and outcomes. Spin J. 2006;6(6 Suppl):282S-288S.

Molina CA, Gokaslan ZL, Sciubba DM. Diagnosis and management of metastatic cervical spine tumors. Orthop Clin North Am. 2012;43(1):75-87, viii-ix.

Moller H, Hedlund R. Surgery versus conservative management in adult isthmic spondylolisthesis--a prospective randomized study: part 1. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(13):1711-1715.

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. NG59 - Low back pain and sciatica in over 16s: assessment and management. November 2016. (Revised 12/11/2020).  Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng59. Accessed October 16, 2024. 

Nikolaidis I, Fouyas IP, Sandercock PA, Statham PF. Surgery for cervical radiculopathy or myelopathy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(1):CD001466.

North American Spine Society. Diagnosis and Treatment of Cervical Radiculopathy: Evidence-Based Clinical Guidelines for Multidisciplinary Spine Care. 2010. Available at: https://www.spine.org/Portals/0/assets/downloads/ResearchClinicalCare/Guidelines/CervicalRadiculopathy.pdf. Accessed October 16, 2024.


North American Spine Society. Diagnosis and Treatment of Lumbar Disc Herniation with Radiculopathy: Evidence-Based Clinical Guidelines for Multidisciplinary Spine Care. 2012. Available at: https://www.spine.org/Documents/ResearchClinicalCare/Guidelines/LumbarDiscHerniation.pdf. Accessed October 16, 2024.

North American Spine Society. Diagnosis and Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis 2011. Available at: https://www.spine.org/Documents/ResearchClinicalCare/Guidelines/LumbarStenosis.pdf. Accessed October 16, 2024.


North American Spine Society. Diagnosis and Treatment of Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis. 2014. Available at: https://www.spine.org/Documents/ResearchClinicalCare/Guidelines/Spondylolisthesis.pdf. Accessed October 16, 2024.

Nowak DD, Lee JK, Gelb DE, et al. Central cord syndrome. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2009;17(12):756-765.

Ohtori S, Koshi T, Yamashita M, et al. Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment of selected patients with discogenic low back pain: a small-sized randomized trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36(5):347-354.

Papadopoulos EC, Huang RC, Girardi FP, et al. Three-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion with plate fixation: radiographic and clinical results. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31(8):897-902.

Persson LC, Moritz U, Brandt L, et al. Cervical radiculopathy: pain, muscle weakness and sensory loss in patients with cervical radiculopathy treated with surgery, physiotherapy or cervical collar. A prospective, controlled study. Eur Spine J.1997;6(4):256-266.

Raizman NM, O'Brien JR, Poehling-Monaghan KL, Yu WD. Pseudarthrosis of the spine. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2009;17(8):494-503.

Resnick DK, Choudhri TF, Dailey AT, et al. Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 7: intractable low-back pain without stenosis or spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005; 2(6):670-672.

Resnick DK, Choudhri TF, Dailey AT, et al. Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 8: lumbar fusion for disc herniation and radiculopathy. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005; 2(6):673-678.

Resnick DK, Choudhri TF, Dailey AT, et al. Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 9: fusion in patients with stenosis and spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005;2(6):679-685.

Resnick DK, Choudhri TF, Dailey AT, et al. Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 10: fusion following decompression in patients with stenosis without spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005;2(6):686-691.

Richards BS, Bernstein RM, D'Amato CR, et al. Standardization of criteria for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis brace studies: SRS Committee on Bracing and Nonoperative Management. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(18):2068-75; discussion 76-7.

Riew KD, Cheng I, Pimenta L, Taylor B. Posterior cervical spine surgery for radiculopathy. Neurosurgery. 2007;60(1 Suppl 1):S57-S63.

Rihn JA, Harrod C, Albert TJ. Revision cervical spine surgery. Orthop Clin North Am. 2012; 43(1):123-136, ix-x.

Rozzelle CJ, Aarabi B, Dhall SS, et al. Os odontoideum. Neurosurgery. 2013;72(2 Suppl):159-169.

Ryken TC, Aarabi B, Dhall SS, et al. Management of isolated fractures of the atlas in adults. Neurosurgery. 2013a;72 (2 Suppl):127-131.

Ryken TC, Hadley MN, Aarabi B, et al. Management of acute combination fractures of the atlas and axis in adults. Neurosurgery. 2013b;72 (2 Suppl):151-158.

Ryken TC, Hadley MN, Aarabi B, et al. Management of isolated fractures of the axis in adults. Neurosurgery. 2013c;72 (2 Suppl):132-150.

Sakai K, Okawa A, Takahashi M, et al. Five-year follow-up evaluation of surgical treatment for cervical myelopathy caused by ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament: a prospective comparative study of anterior decompression and fusion with floating method versus laminoplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(5):367-376.

Saltychev M, Eskola M, Laimi K. Lumbar fusion compared with conservative treatment in patients with chronic low back pain: a meta-analysis. Int J Rehabil Res. 2013;37(1):2-8.

Sardhara J, Behari S, Jaiswal AK, et al. Syndromic versus nonsyndromic atlantoaxial dislocation: do clinico-radiological differences have a bearing on management? Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2013;155(7):1157-1167.

Savage JG, Fulkerson DH, Sen AN, et al. Fixation with C-2 laminar screws in occipitocervical or C1-2 constructs in children 5 years of age or younger: a series of 18 patients. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2014;14(1):87-93.

Seng C, Tow BP, Siddiqui MA, et al. Surgically treated cervical myelopathy: a functional outcome comparison study between multilevel anterior cervical decompression fusion with instrumentation and posterior laminoplasty. Spine J. 2013; 13(7):723-731.

Shetty GM, Song HR, Unnikrishnan R, et al. Upper cervical spine instability in pseudoachondroplasia. J Pediatr Orthop. 2007;27(7):782-787.

Shousha M, Boehm H. Surgical treatment of cervical spondylodiscitis: a review of 30 consecutive patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(1):E30-E36.

Siemionow KB, Neckrysh S. Anterior approach for complex cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Orthop Clin North Am. 2012;43(1):41-52, viii.

Song KJ, Choi BY. Current concepts of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a review of literature. Asian Spine J. 2014;8(4):531-539.

Thomas KC, Bailey CS, Dvorak MF, et al. Comparison of operative and nonoperative treatment for thoracolumbar burst fractures in patients without neurological deficit: a systematic review. J Neurosurg Spine. 2006;4(5):351-358.

Todd AG. Cervical spine: degenerative conditions. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2011;4(4):168-174.

Tracy JA, Bartleson JD. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Neurologist. 2010;16(3):176-187.

Wald JT. Imaging of spine neoplasm. Radiol Clin North Am. 2012;50(4):749-776.

Wang C, Yan M, Zhou HT, et al. Open reduction of irreducible atlantoaxial dislocation by transoral anterior atlantoaxial release and posterior internal fixation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31(11):E306-313.

Wang VY, Chou D. The cervicothoracic junction. Neurosurg Clin North Am. 2007;18(2):365-371.

Wasserman BR, Moskovich R, Razi AE. Rheumatoid arthritis of the cervical spine--clinical considerations. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis. 2011;69(2):136-148.

Watters WC, 3rd, Bono CM, Gilbert TJ, et al. An evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. Spine J. 2009;9(7):609-614.

Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, et al. Surgical compared with nonoperative treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. four-year results in the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) randomized and observational cohorts. Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(6):1295-1304.

Weinstein JN, Tosteson TD, Lurie JD, et al. Surgical vs nonoperative treatment for lumbar disk herniation: the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT): a randomized trial. JAMA. 2006;296(20):2441-2450.

Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, et al. Surgical vs nonoperative treatment for lumbar disk herniation: the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT) observational cohort. JAMA. 2006;296(20):2451-2459.

Weinstein JN, Lurie JD, Tosteson TD, et al. Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(22):2257-2270.

Wood K, Buttermann G, Mehbod A, et al. Operative compared with nonoperative treatment of a thoracolumbar burst fracture without neurological deficit. A prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85-A(5):773-781.

Xu H, Zhao J, Yuan J, Wang C. Anterior discectomy and fusion with internal fixation for unstable hangman's fracture. Int Orthop. 2010;34(1):85-88.

Yamazaki M, Okawa A, Furuya T, et al. Anomalous vertebral arteries in the extra- and intraosseous regions of the craniovertebral junction visualized by 3-dimensional computed tomographic angiography: analysis of 100 consecutive surgical cases and review of the literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012;37(22):E1389-E1397.

Zhu B, Xu Y, Liu X, et al. Anterior approach versus posterior approach for the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2013;22(7):1583-1593.

Zou J, Yuan C, Zhu R, et al. Effect of occipitocervical fusion with screw-rod system for upper cervical spine tumor. BMC Surg. 2014;14:30.

Coding

CPT Procedure Code Number(s)
MEDICALLY NECESSARY

CERVICAL SPINE

22210, 22216, 22220, 22226, 22548, 22551, 22552, 22554, 22585, 22590, 22595, 22600, 22614, 22830, 63081, 63082, 63300, 63304, 63308

THORACIC SPINE

22206, 22208, 22212, 22216, 22222, 22226, 22532, 22556, 22610, 63085, 63086, 63087, 63088, 63090, 63091, 63101, 63103, 63301, 63302, 63305, 63306, 63308

LUMBAR SPINE

22207, 22208, 22214, 22216, 22224, 22226, 22533, 22534, 22558, 22585, 22612, 22614, 22630, 22632, 22633, 22634, 63052, 63053, 63087, 63088, 63090, 63091, 63102, 63103, 63303, 63307, 63308

SACRAL SPINE

63090, 63091, 63303, 63307, 63308

THE FOLLOWING CODES ARE USED TO REPRESENT SPINAL FUSION FOR A SPINAL DEFORMITY AT ANY LEVEL

22800, 22802, 22804, 22808, 22810, 22812, 22818, 22819, 22830

THE FOLLOWING CODES ARE USED TO REPRESENT ALLOGRAFTS & AUTOGRAFTS FOR SPINAL FUSION

20930, 20931, 20936, 20937, 20938

THE FOLLOWING CODES ARE USED TO REPRESENT INSTRUMENTATION USED IN SPINAL FUSION

22840, 22841, 22842, 22843, 22844, 22845, 22846, 22847, 22848, 22849, 22850, 22852, 22853, 22854, 22855, 22859

ICD - 10 Procedure Code Number(s)
N/A
ICD - 10 Diagnosis Code Number(s)
Report the most appropriate diagnosis code in support of medical necessity as listed in the policy.
HCPCS Level II Code Number(s)
N/A
Revenue Code Number(s)
N/A



Coding and Billing Requirements

Policy History

Revisions From 11.14.27f:​​​
​05/28/2025
​The policy has been reissued in accordance with the Company's annual review process.​
​11/13/2024

​This policy has been reviewed and reissued to communicate the Company's continuing position on ​spinal fusion.​
​04/19/2023

​This policy has been reissued in accordance with the Company's annual review process.​
07/01/2022The policy has been reviewed and reissued to communicate the Company's continuing position on ​Spinal Fusion.

Effective July 1, 2022, the policy disclaimer was revised to communicate:
This policy only applies to members for whom Independence Administrators serves as the claims administrator and whose group has not enrolled in the UM vendor program.  For those groups who have been given the option to enroll in the UM vendor program, this policy is no longer applicable upon their renewal effective date. Individual member benefits must be verified before/prior to providing services.​
​01/01/2022
​Inclusion of a policy in a Code Update memo does not imply that a full review of

the policy was completed at this time.

 

This policy has been identified for the CPT code update, effective 01/01/2022.


The following CPT narratives have been revised in this policy: 22614, 22633 and 22634.

The following CPT codes have been added to the policy:  63052 and 63053.


Revisions From 11.14.27e:
11/03/2021The policy has been reviewed and reissued to communicate the Company's continuing position on ​Spinal Fusion.
​01/10/2021

​This version of the policy will become effective 01/10/2021.


This policy has been updated to be applicable to Independence Administrators only.

 

This policy is no longer applicable to Commercial Independence members as the Company will be using AIM Specialty Health® (AIM) Guidelines for Spinal Fusion to determine medical necessity for Commercial Independence members. Commercial Independence members refer to the policy entitled Musculoskeletal Services #00.01.66.

 

The Physiatry consultation requirement was removed from the lumbar spinal fusion portion of the policy criteria section​.


Revisions From 11.14.27d:
06/15/2020This version of the policy will become effective on 06/15/2020. Description section was updated. Physiatry consultation requirement was added to the lumbar portion of the policy criteria section.

Revisions From 11.14.27c:
01/14/2019This version of the policy will become effective on 01/14/2019.

Lumbar Spinal Fusion

Policy language was revised for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis, Instability of the Lumbar Spine, and Iatrogenic or Degenerative Flat Back Syndrome.

Lumbar Synovial Cyst was added as a Medically Necessary indication.

Criteria was added for Recurrent, Same Level Lumbar Disc Herniation and Symptomatic Lumbar Pseudarthrosis.

Language was added to the description section regarding lumbar synovial cyst.

Revisions From 11.14.27b:
01/02/2018This version of the policy will become effective on 01/02/2018.

The policy has been reviewed to communicate the Company’s continuing position on Spinal Fusion.

The following language was added to the description section:

Lumbar foraminotomy and laminotomy involve removal of a portion of the bony arch, or lamina, on the dorsal surface of a vertebra. These are typically performed to access the disc space and relieve pressure on the nerve roots and spinal cord.

Additional procedures codes related to foraminotomy and laminotomy were added to the policy.

Effective 10/05/2017 this policy has been updated to the new policy template
format.

Effective 10/05/2017 this policy has been updated to the new policy template format.
1/1/2022
12/31/2021
5/28/2025
11.14.27
Medical Policy Bulletin
Commercial
No
Connect with Us

2026 Independence Blue Cross

Independence Blue Cross is a subsidiary of Independence Health Group, Inc. — independent licensees of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, serving the health insurance needs of Philadelphia and southeastern Pennsylvania.