Revenue Cycle Insider

See how detailed operative notes help your claims withstand audit scrutiny.

Spine instrumentation and implant procedures can create plenty of coding complications, but the right documentation can help straighten them out. During their HEALTHCON 2026 presentation, “Denial Trends and Resolutions in Orthopedics,” Lynn Anderanin, coding compliance manager at EmergeOrtho and Cheryl Patterson, coding manager at EmergeOrtho, brought solutions to these problems.

In Part 2 of this orthopedic coding series, you’ll learn how to report a bone-anchored annular closure device and determine when you may code interbody devices and anterior instrumentation separately to avoid claim denials.

Learn New Coding for Annular Closure Device for Spine

In 2026, a new CPT^® code was introduced for a bone-anchored annular closure device, which is used to prevent recurrent lumbar disc herniation related to M51.26 (Other intervertebral disc displacement, lumbar region) and to reduce the need for reoperation after a discectomy. The new code is +63032 (Laminotomy (hemilaminectomy), with decompression of nerve root(s), including partial facetectomy, foraminotomy and/or excision of herniated intervertebral disc; with repair of annular defect by implantation of bone-anchored annular closure device, including all imaging guidance, 1 interspace, lumbar (List separately in addition to code for primary procedure), which is an add-on code to be used with 63030 (… 1 interspace, lumbar).

This device is used to seal large openings in the annulus fibrosus and significantly reduces the risk of further herniation.

“If your provider is using this implant in more than one level, you’ve got to bill the first level with +63032 and then the second level with the 22899 [Unlisted procedure, spine] unlisted code,” said Patterson. She did warn that some payers still consider this procedure experimental and investigational. “The manufacturer can help you out with verbiage for your payers,” she added.

Review This Bone-Anchored Annular Closure Documentation Example

This example shows the key elements needed to support medical necessity and accurate reporting of a bone-anchored annular closure device. A strong operative note explains why the device was needed, documents the size of the annular defect, describes how the implant was placed, confirms proper positioning through imaging, and includes complete device identification information. When the provider clearly documents these details, you’ll have the evidence needed to support code assignment and help defend the procedure in the event of a payer audit or denial:

Procedure: Lumbar microdiscectomy and implantation of bone-anchored annular closure device (for example, L4-L5 or L5-S1)

Indication: Large annular defect (X mm) post-discectomy

Technique: Following discectomy, the defect was measured to X mm. A [size] [device name] was selected. The implant was inserted through the annulotomy, with the bone anchor secured into the [superior/inferior] vertebral body apophyseal ring

Verification: Positioning was confirmed via fluoroscopy, showing the polymer barrier flush against the inner annulus, covering the defect

Device Identification: Manufacturer name, size, lot, and serial number

Safety Check: Confirmation of proper anchor seating in the vertebral body and mesh placement inside the disc space

Simplify Spine Instrumentation Coding

Cage and plate insertion is another common headache among orthopedic coders. Patterson recommended asking these questions when coding for +22845 (Anterior instrumentation; 2 to 3 vertebral segments (List separately in addition to code for primary procedure)) and +22853 (Insertion of interbody biomechanical device(s) (eg, synthetic cage, mesh) with integral anterior instrumentation for device anchoring (eg, screws, flanges), when performed, to intervertebral disc space in conjunction with interbody arthrodesis, each interspace (List separately in addition to code for primary procedure)):

1. Is your instrumentation integral or standalone?
2. Does the plate cross the inner space?
3. Does the plate provide independent stabilization?
4. Can the plate be used with any other type of interspace device?
5. Does your operative note list the manufacturer name, size, lot, and serial number(s)?

For example, do not report +22845 if the cage has integrated fixation (screws through the cage), as the instrumentation is considered part of +22853.

Do not report +22845 with vague information like “plate,” “cage,” or “interbody device.” Payers want specific details, including how the procedure contributes to independent stabilization. To better understand the differences between integral and standalone implants, Patterson explained the following:

• An integral device is an implant where the fixation and the cage are manufactured as one combined system. The cage includes built-in screws, blades, anchors, or fixation elements that provide immediate stability without needing a separate plate. For example:
  • Zero-profile cages with integrated screws,
  • Cages with built-in anchoring fins or blades, and
  • Systems where the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) labeling describes the cages and fixation as a single construct.
• A standalone device refers to implants where the plate and cage are completely separate and independent. Each component provides its own stability if the cage were removed. For example, each component:
  • Is manufactured separately,
  • Has its own FDA labeling,
  • Performs its own mechanical function, and
  • Is not dependent on the other to provide stability.

Review This Sample Operative Note for a Spinal Instrumentation Procedure

This sample operative note highlights the level of detail coders should look for when determining whether separate reporting of the interbody device and anterior instrumentation is supported, and also to help prevent claim denials:

Description of procedure: The patient was positioned supine, and a standard left-sided Smith-Robinson approach was used. C5-C6 was confirmed with fluoroscopy. A complete discectomy and decompression were performed, and endplates were prepared.

Interbody device placement (+22853): An XYZ Interbody Cage (Model X-XYZ) — a stand-alone cage without integrated screws, blades, or fixation — was packed with graft and inserted under fluoroscopic guidance. Position was confirmed. The cage does not provide anterior segmental stability and contains no built-in fixation components.

Anterior instrumentation (+22845): A separate anterior plate, the Super Duper Plate™ Anterior Cervical Plate System (Model BR-549), was selected and implanted independently of the cage system to provide stabilization across C5-C6. The plate was secured with four screws, and placement was confirmed fluoroscopically. The plate and cage are not part of an integrated system; each device performs its own biomechanical function.

Closure: The wound was irrigated, homeostasis achieved, and layers closed in standard fashion. The patient tolerated the procedure well.

Implants used: XYZ Interbody Cage (Model X-XYZ) — stand-alone, no internal fixation Super Duper Plate™ (Model BR-549), Anterior Cervical Plate (NP-AC45) — independent plate, four cervical screws (for plate).

Lindsey Bush, BA, MA, CPC, Production Editor, AAPC