Wiki Assistance with Hysterectomy Codes

pclaybaugh

Networker
Messages
99
Location
Titusville, FL
Best answers
0
Greetings,
I code mostly OB deliveries and am revisiting Gyn Coding and have the following op report. Forgive the length. I have coded this with 58552. Please, am I missing something?

A sterile speculum was placed in the patient’s vagina and the cervix was visualized. A single tooth tenaculum was used to grasp the anterior lip of the cervix. The uterus was sounded to 9 cm. A 0-vicryl figure of eight stitch was placed at the 12:00 position and then secured to the V-care uterine manipulator, which was placed in the usual manner. The speculum was then removed from the vagina. Attention was then turned to the patient’s abdomen were a 5mm skin incision was made in the lower margin of the umbilicus after injection of local anesthesia. A 5mm trocar and sleeve were then carefully introduced into the peritoneal cavity under direct visualization at a 90-degree angle, while tenting up the abdominal wall. Intra-peritoneal placement was confirmed under direct visualization with the laparoscope with entry pressure <5 mm Hg. A pneumoperitoneum was obtained with CO2 gas and maximum pressure of 20 mmHg. Upon entry into the peritoneal cavity, structures immediately below the incision were inspected and found to be free of injury. Three additional port sites, including a 5mm left-lower quadrant x 2, a 5-mm right lower quadrant were placed under direct laparoscopic visualization. A survey of the pt’s abdomen and pelvis was notable for normal appearing liver edge and gall bladder. The appendix was not visualized. The ovaries were seen bilaterally and were normal in appearance. The fallopian tubes were normal in appearance bilaterally. The anterior cul de sac was normal in appearance. The posterior cul de sac was normal in appearance. There were no discreet endometriosis lesions seen in the pelvis. The ureters were then identified bilaterally coursing along the lateral pelvic sidewalls. Stabilizing the uterus with the manipulator, the Ligasure was used ligate the mesosalpinx under the fallopian tube on the left. The procedure was repeated on the right side. The fallopian tubes remained attached to the uterine fundus. The Ligasure was then used to clamp, cut, and ligate the round ligaments bilaterally. The anterior broad ligament was then incised along the bladder reflection starting on the right side and carried around to the left side. The bladder was dissected off the lower uterine segment until endopelvic fascia was visualized.The utero-ovarian ligaments were then ligated as close as possible to the uterine corpus with the Ligasure.The pedicles were then inspected, with hemostasis noted.The uterine arteries were then identified, skeletonized, electro-dessicated and ligated using Ligasure electrocautery.The uterosacral ligaments and cardinal ligaments were transected bilaterally using Ligasure. The anterior colpotomy was then made using the Ligasure hook.The colpotomy was then continued circumferentially just inferior to the cervix using the V-care® colpotomy ring as a guide.The entire cervix and uterus was then successfully amputated from the vagina.Hemostasis was noted.The uterus, fallopian tubes, and cervix were then delivered through the vagina.The vagina was occluded with an aseptic bulb with ratex inside on a ring forceps. The vaginal cuff was closed laparoscopically with running V-Loc suture. The uterosacral ligament was incorporated on the right side. To the right of midline the suture broke off the needle. The needle was removed via Left lower quadrant port. A second V-Loc suture was place into the abdomen. The suture was oversewn through the midline. The cuff was closed and the second needle removed from the abdomen. The pelvis was irrigated. The vaginal cuff and pedicles were noted to be hemostatic. The vaginal occluder was then removed. The cystoscope was then primed and advanced through the urethra and into the bladder. Both ureteral orifices were identified and bilateral efflux of urine visualized. A survey of bladder showed no defects or visible suture. The cystoscope was then removed and the bladder drained. A vaginal exam was completed without cuff defect noted. The cuff was well suspended. All instruments were noted to be removed from the vagina.
 
Hi, unless I missed something, it appears all the uterine attachments were severed via the scope, and the specimen was removed vaginally. I would code 58571. For an LAVH, you would see the uterosacral/cardinal ligaments severed via a vaginal approach.
 
Hi, unless I missed something, it appears all the uterine attachments were severed via the scope, and the specimen was removed vaginally. I would code 58571. For an LAVH, you would see the uterosacral/cardinal ligaments severed via a vaginal approach.
Hello, many thanks, I will take a closer look. I have just found a Coding Clinic to help me along.
 
Hi, unless I missed something, it appears all the uterine attachments were severed via the scope, and the specimen was removed vaginally. I would code 58571. For an LAVH, you would see the uterosacral/cardinal ligaments severed via a vaginal approach.
You are correct. This qualifies as a total laparoscopic hysterectomy rather than a LAVH because they severed all attachments via the scope. The uterus can be removed vaginally or via the scope and this would still be coded as 58571.
 
It's rare my clinicians perform LAVH vs TLH. However, my trick if unsure is to look when the colpotomy was performed. The surgeon wasn't doing any portion vaginally until they opened the vagina. If all the ligaments and arteries were severed before the colpotomy, it was not vaginally assisted. They simply removed the specimens that way and performed the surgery through the abdominal/pelvic scope ports.
 
It's rare my clinicians perform LAVH vs TLH. However, my trick if unsure is to look when the colpotomy was performed. The surgeon wasn't doing any portion vaginally until they opened the vagina. If all the ligaments and arteries were severed before the colpotomy, it was not vaginally assisted. They simply removed the specimens that way and performed the surgery through the abdominal/pelvic scope ports.
That’s a great tip. Thanks!
 
I am getting confused on the closure method. I read a previous discussion thread where it was stated by someone I consider highly knowledgeable on the topic "if the entire procedure was done laparoscopically, I would not use the LAVH just because of suturing"
My provider has switched up his technique and is now closing the vaginal cuff through the vagina and not the scope. For Example:
The mesosalpinx of the cornual region on the right was cauterized and transected with the vessel sealer. The utero-ovarian vessels were cauterized and transected with the vessel sealer. The right round ligament was cauterized and transected with the vessel sealer. The uterine vessels were skeletonized and the bladder mobilized off the lower uterine segment. The uterine vessels were cauterized and transected with the vessel sealer. The left mesosalpinx of the cornual region was cauterized and transected with the vessel sealer. The utero-ovarian vessels were cauterized and transected with the vessel sealer. The left round ligament was cauterized and transected with the vessel sealer. The uterine vessels were skeletonized and the bladder mobilized over the lower uterine segment. The uterine vessels were cauterized and transected with the vessel sealer. The bladder was mobilized fully over the Rumi device and the vascular pedicles were cauterized and transected with the vessel sealer down to the level of the Rumi device on each side. Using cut current and the monopolar spatula, the cervix was separated from the vagina along the rim of the Rumi device. The uterus, cervix, and tubes were delivered through the vagina. Bleeders were cauterized with bipolar cautery. The instruments were removed and the robot was undocked. The vaginal cuff was closed from the vaginal side with interrupted figure-of-eight sutures of 2-0 Vicryl followed by a running suture of 2-0 Vicryl. The scrub tech to watch from above to ensure no suture was placed through any other pelvic/abdominal organs. Gloves were changed. The pelvis was copiously irrigated. There was excellent hemostasis. Arista was then placed on the vaginal cuff and all the pedicles. This completed the procedure
. Gas was allowed to escape from the sleeves and the sleeves were removed. The skin was closed with skin clips and band-aids applied.




Now I found this article from the OB/GYN coding alert that states the closure method does matter. I highlighted the comments in bold. Is the article incorrect in stating the closure method makes a difference? I tend to believe the individuals that answer questions a lot over an article, but I guess I would like a little more confirmation before approaching the surgeon.

Reader Questions:

Highlight These Three LAVH, TLH Differences​

Published on Sun Jul 25, 2010
Print Friendly and PDF
PDF

Question:
What is the difference between 58550 (laparoscopy with vaginal hysterectomy or LAVH) and 58570 (total laparoscopic hysterectomy or TLH)? I always thought that with the LAVH, the ob-gyn pulled out the uterus vaginally after he cut the ligaments through the scope. With the TLH, the ob-gyn cut the uterus with a morcellator and pulled out in pieces through the scope. A couple of physicians I code for are labeling their surgeries TLH's and wanting to bill 58570, but reading the op reports I see that they pulled the uterus out vaginally in one piece. What should I tell them?

Oregon Subscriber


Answer:

For a total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH), the ob-gyn can remove the uterus via the scope or vaginally in one piece. What makes the difference is how the ob-gyn severs the connections and how the ob-gyn sews the vaginal cuff.


Difference 1:
In the laparoscopic with vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) cases, the ob-gyn severs only the upper connections via the scope. In the TLH case, the ob-gyn severs both upper and lower connections through the scope.


Difference 2: In an LAVH, the ob-gyn enters the vaginal wall from below to remove the uterus. In a TLH, the ob-gyn circumscribes the cervix from above to release the organ and pull it through the vaginal canal. Note that he can also remove the uterus using the scope after morcellating the uterus, but either approach can still represent the TLH.


Difference 3: In an LAVH, the ob-gyn sews the vaginal cuff closed from below, in a TLH, it is sewn closed via the scope.
--------------------------


Thank you, Cathy Satkus, CPC, COBGC
St. Francis Health System
 
Hi Cathy.
Here's another thread where we discuss this issue. https://www.aapc.com/discuss/threads/lavh-vs-tlh.170778/

There is a Coding Clinic from 2012 where they address the coding of LAVH vs TLH and state in part "An important factor in assigning the correct ICD-9-CM hysterectomy procedure code is to determine what structures were detached and how they were detached based on the medical record documentation. The focus should be on the surgical technique or approach used for the detachment of those structures. Code assignment should not be based on the location of where the structures were physically removed from the patient’s body. "

Although they are not discussing the cuff closure, they clearly state that code choise is based on the detachment of the uterine structures - where/how they are detached.

They further state "A total laparoscopic abdominal hysterectomy (TLH) involves detachment of the entire uterus and cervix from the surrounding supporting structures via the laparoscopic technique. The uterus is then removed through the vagina or abdomen. It may include bivalving, coring, or morcellating the excised tissues, asrequired. The procedure concludes with suturing of the vaginal cuff, removal of instruments and closureof the incisions. " Their statement does not specify how the cuff was closed.

So bottom line, the suturing of the cuff is not the deciding factor in code choice.
 
Hi Cathy.
Here's another thread where we discuss this issue. https://www.aapc.com/discuss/threads/lavh-vs-tlh.170778/

There is a Coding Clinic from 2012 where they address the coding of LAVH vs TLH and state in part "An important factor in assigning the correct ICD-9-CM hysterectomy procedure code is to determine what structures were detached and how they were detached based on the medical record documentation. The focus should be on the surgical technique or approach used for the detachment of those structures. Code assignment should not be based on the location of where the structures were physically removed from the patient’s body. "

Although they are not discussing the cuff closure, they clearly state that code choise is based on the detachment of the uterine structures - where/how they are detached.

They further state "A total laparoscopic abdominal hysterectomy (TLH) involves detachment of the entire uterus and cervix from the surrounding supporting structures via the laparoscopic technique. The uterus is then removed through the vagina or abdomen. It may include bivalving, coring, or morcellating the excised tissues, asrequired. The procedure concludes with suturing of the vaginal cuff, removal of instruments and closureof the incisions. " Their statement does not specify how the cuff was closed.

So bottom line, the suturing of the cuff is not the deciding factor in code choice.
Thank you Meg! I saw the other discussion thread, I think that's the one I quoted. I was of the same opinion as you until I saw that OB/GYN article and that gave me doubts. I appreciate the references and confirmation.
 
I agree. While I've never seen an op note where the vaginal cuff was sewn vaginally and the entire rest of the procedure was laparoscopic, I would still consider it TLH if all the arteries/ligaments/ligation were done laparoscopic.
 
Top