# Neurosurgery  NEW CODE REPLACEING DELETED CODE



## Pat Liebl (Nov 3, 2016)

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 (Nov 4, 2016)

*Interested!*

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


----------



## mhstrauss (Nov 4, 2016)

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 (Nov 6, 2016)

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


----------



## tboback (Nov 8, 2016)

I hear you Donna!  My doctors always do arthrodesis!!!  Hoping to get clarification soon!


----------



## mnk8383 (Dec 27, 2016)

Can these new cage codes be used with posterior 22633?


----------



## Paston@southdenverspine.com (Jan 16, 2017)

*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?


----------

