Wiki Component Separation

mieka.schambach

Contributor
Messages
13
Location
Knoxville, TN
Best answers
0
We coded the below as 15734 but the insurance is stating it's not supported by the op note. What else should we try?

Operative Report
Start date: 11/13/24
Start time: 0830
Pre-procedure diagnosis:
1. Incisional hernia - recurrent, incarcerated - greater than 10 cm size
2. Abdominal wall separation
Post-procedure diagnosis: same as pre-procedure dx, 3. Intraperitoneal adhesions
Procedures performed:
1. Robotic incisional hernia repair with bilateral posterior component
separation
2. Robotic bilateral TAR procedure
3. Robotic lysis of adhesions (separate procedure)
Technique/Procedure:
The patient was brought to the operating suite and placed under general
anesthesia. the patient did receive appropriate preoperative antibiotics, had
SCDs placed for DVT prophylaxis, and then had the abdomen prepped and draped in
the normal sterile fashion. Local anesthetic of 0.5 percent Marcaine plain was
injected at the incision sites prior to incision and at the end of the
procedure. Initially there was approximately 12 millimeter transverse incision
made in the left subcostal region. A 5 mm Optiview trocar was then inserted
into the peritoneal cavity under direct visualization. The abdomen was
insufflated in the above findings were noted. Two additional trocars were then
placed in the left abdomen with an 8 millimeter placed in the lateral left
subcostal region and another 8 millimeter placed in the left flank region. The
5 mm trocar was then upsized to a 12 mm trocar in the left subcostal position.
The patient was then positioned appropriately and the robotic da Vinci patient
cart was brought up to the operative field and docked to the trocars.

Initially all of the adhesions of the omentum to the anterior abdominal wall
were taken down using hook cautery. Then the omentum was reduced out of the
hernia sacs in all locations using hook cautery. This extensive lysis of
adhesions took a good portion of the beginning of the case, and therefore was a
separately identifiable and billable procedure in the case. Eventually the
anterior abdominal wall was cleared and the transversus abdominis release
procedure began initially on the patient's right side. First the posterior
rectus sheath was separated away from the rectus muscle starting a few
millimeters from the medial edge of the muscle. This was divided all the way
from the subxiphoid region down to the lower rectus muscle past the arcuate
line. The rectus sheath was peeled away from the rectus muscle all way to the
lateral edge of the rectus muscle along the entire length until the perforating
neurovascular bundle was encountered. At that location the transversus
abdominis muscle was divided or its appropriate aponeurosis starting from the
subxiphoid region going all way down to the lower abdomen. The then the
peritoneum was separated away from the transversus abdominus muscle going out
laterally all way to the visceral edge. This completed the release procedure on
the patient's right side.

This concluded the robotic portion on the patient's left side. Three 8
millimeter trocars were then inserted along the patient's right side under
direct visualization placing 1 in the right upper quadrant, 1 in the right flank
, and another 1 in the right lower quadrant. The robot was then rotated 180
degrees and docked to these trocars. A similar transversus abdominis release
procedure was then performed on the patient's left side creating the posterior
component separation all way to the visceral edge on this side as well. Once
this flap was created the posterior rectus sheath was reapproximated in the
midline using a 2 0 V lock suture in a running stitch. Any additional defects
in the posterior rectus sheath or peritoneal area were closed using 2-0 V lock
suture in interrupted figure-of-eight stitches. Then the rectus muscles were
reapproximated and repaired in the anterior abdominal wall using an #1 V lock
suture in a running stitch. There were several sutures needed total to span
the entire length. During this process, the hernia defects were all primarily
closed with the same #1 V lock suture. At this point the defect was measured
using a ruler and a mesh was brought onto the field and cut to size. An
approximately 10 x 25 cm strip was inserted into the peritoneal cavity. It was
initially sewn in place using an 0 silk suture in several interrupted stitches
circumferentially. Then an 0 V lock absorbable suture was used to secure the
periphery of the mesh to the anterior abdominal wall circumferentially.

This concluded the bilateral transversus abdominis release procedure as well as
the incisional hernia repair. This concluded the robotic portion of the case in
the da Vinci patient cart was undocked from the trocars and removed from the
operative field. The left upper quadrant subcostal 12 millimeter incision site
was closed with a fascial closure device and an 0 Vicryl suture. The other
trocars were all removed under direct visualization and the abdomen was
desufflated. All the skin incisions were closed using a 4 0 Monocryl suture in
interrupted subcuticular stitches. They were then cleaned and dressed normal
fashion Steri-Strips were placed on top. Patient was recovered from anesthesia
without any problems and moved to the recovery room stable condition.
Primary Surgeon: Vineet Choudhry, MD
Assistant(s): none
Anesthesia: general anesthesia, local anesthesia
Operative findings:
1. Patient was found to have significant adhesions of the omentum to the
anterior abdominal wall along the midline. The lateral sides of the abdomen
were relatively spared of adhesions. However the omental adhesions to the
midline were relatively dense and extensive. There was a large amount of time
required to lyse these adhesions and reduced the omentum from all the different
hernia defects. Part of this was also due to the large number of defects that
he had. This was a separately billable and identifiable procedure due to the
extensiveness of it and length of time required to perform it.

2. The patient was found to have numerous midline hernias. These were hard to
number total but perhaps he had 10-15 different defects. Most of these were
relatively small about 1-2 cm in size. However he had more dominant ones
located in the periumbilical region which were 2-3 cm in size each. There was
also another more dominant 1 in the lower midline which was where the recent
bowel got incarcerated creating a small-bowel obstruction. There was no bowel
incarcerated within it at the beginning of the case currently. There was
omentum incarcerated within all these defects. There was no evidence of any
tissue strangulation. There was again no evidence of any bowel involvement or
obstruction. The length of all the defects from top to bottom was measured at
approximately 18 cm in length making the hernia greater than 10 cm in size.
This was a recurrent hernia in the periumbilical region.

3. The patient also had a concurrent abdominal wall separation. This was
measured at approximately 6-8 cm in diameter at its widest in the periumbilical
region where the dominant defects were. All the hernia defects were located
within this abdominal wall separation. Was felt that without repair of this
that the patient would be at higher risk of recurrent herniation along the
midline as well as new herniations in the future. Therefore it was repaired
primarily as well during the case. This ultimately is what was repaired by
doing the bilateral posterior component separation TAR procedure.

4. No other significant acute or chronic findings were noted throughout the
abdomen on exploration. Other than the omental adhesions in the midline there
was no other significant bowel adhesions identified, especially any interloop
adhesions. Specifically the LUQ was clear of any adhesions.
Complications: none
Estimated blood loss in ml's: 25
Estimated blood loss: expected
Specimens removed/altered: none
Cultures sent: No
Drain(s)/tube(s): none
Implant(s): Ethicon Prolene Mesh - Cut to 10x25 cm size with rounded edges
Disposition: plan to D/C home
Counts:
Sponge count: correct
Instrument count: correct
Needle count: correct
Cottonoid count: correct
Wound class: clean
Dictation number:
None
 
Top