The second-generation devices like HTA are less likely to be associated with fluid overload, uterine perforation, cervical laceration and haematoma when compared with first-generation devices. So I feel the cervical laceration can not be considered as an inherent component of the main minor procedure. It can happen rarely, but expected complication, though).
Besides, the Cx laceration has been documented as an effect of tenaculum, which is also rare but can happen, though. ( I mean amounting to suturing)
On the top of it, an internal organ laceration can not be viewed as a simple one as that of integumentary system, which need not be reported separately..
So, analytically, my opinion is to report it separately as CX repair 57720, appending Mod -59 to it; But I need to have a second and more experienced Coder/ Biller's opinion and final say.
- ICD-10 Training
- Exam Preparation
- CPC (Certified Professional Coder)
- COC (Certified Outpatient Coder)
- CIC (Certified Inpatient Coder) NEW!
- CRC (Certified Risk Adjustment Coder) NEW!
- CPB (Certified Professional Biller)
- CPMA (Certified Professional Medical Auditor)
- CDEO (Certified Documentation Expert – Outpatient) NEW!
- CPPM (Certified Physician Practice Manager)
- CPCO (Certified Professional Compliance Officer)
- VIEW ALL CERTIFICATIONS
Coding / Billing Solutions
- Code Lookup with AAPC Coder
- Coding Data Files
- ICD-9 to ICD-10 Code Converter (FREE)
- Other ICD-10 Codes / Resources
- CPT Codes
- HCPCS Codes
- E/M Analyzer (FREE)
- CPT RVU Calculator (FREE)
- Risk Adjustment Search (FREE)
- PQRS Measure Search (FREE)
- Health Plan / Provider Policy Search (FREE)
- MACRA Calculator
- Audit / Compliance Solutions
Job Experience / Apprentice Removal
News / Discussion
- Other Resources
- Book Store
- Log In / Join