Neurosurgery NEW CODE REPLACEING DELETED CODE

Pat Liebl

Networker
Messages
54
Best answers
0
In 2017 they deleted cpt code 22851 (Application of intervertebral biomechanical devices synthetic cage methylmethacrylate to vertebral defect or interspace) The new cpt's are 22853. 22854, 22859. 22859 ( is insertion of intervertebral biomechanical devices, synthetic cage, mesh, methylmethacrylate to intervertebral disc space or vertebral body defect (WITHOUT INTERBODY ARTHRODESIS) My doctors code for ACDF using the 22851 I though 22859 would replace it but it says without interbody arthrodesis Could someone tell me the right code to replace 22851

Thank you
 

tboback

Networker
Messages
43
Best answers
0
Interested!

I'm also interested in how these new codes should be used in 2017. Any hints/cheat sheets would be greatly appreciated!
 

mhstrauss

True Blue
Messages
1,241
Location
Baton Rouge
Best answers
0
Following. I don't have my 2017 book yet, so I can't answer, but as soon as I do, and have more info, I will post here. Will also watch for any other resources that may help. My docs do a lot of ACDF's, so I will definitely be looking!
 

avon4117

Guru
Messages
246
Location
FLINT
Best answers
0
I have my 2017 cpt code book and it looks like 22853 is with arthrodesis synthetic cage, mesh, 22854 when performed with corpectomy, and 22859 is synthetic cage, mesh, methylmethalacrylate without arthrodesis. Its kind of confusing because the surgeon i use to work for used methylmethalacrylate..never without arthrodesis:confused:
 

tboback

Networker
Messages
43
Best answers
0
I hear you Donna! My doctors always do arthrodesis!!! Hoping to get clarification soon!
 
Messages
5
Best answers
0
Billing Manager

Hey, can anybody clarify a little more on these codes please? One answer in this blog states that "these new codes are not approach specific and the test is: if the device is attached or integral to the anchoring(plate) then you can not separately bill for the plate. Posterior plating or segmental instrumentation codes are completely different then anterior so I so not see the point of the argument that these new codes are not approach specific. They are recommending using them for posterior fusion coding also. I do not understand how these codes can be construed as not approach specific! Any thoughts?
 
Top