Wiki Coding Help - Subscapularis Repair

Billingandcoding2

Networker
Messages
25
Location
Powhatan , VA
Best answers
0
I am not well versed in these types of procedures, our surgeons usually provide their own coding. They are not sure about the coding in this instance, and I'd like to get some help.

From a previous course I have noted "Was the poly liner not causing problems - was it removed for I&D due to infection? Might want to look at the arthrotomy codes instead". There is also guidance to report revision with modifier 52.

My thoughts:
Either 23040 or 23474-52
and 23031 for the cyst wall debridement.


Preoperative Diagnosis:
Persistent draining wound s/p R rTSA. Patient has been taking oral doxycycline since completion of surgery on 9/27.

Postoperative Diagnosis:
Same

Procedure:
R rTSA wash out, I&D, culture
Poly exchange
Subscapularis repair

EBL: 100 cc

Implants:

Implant NameTypeInv. ItemSerial No.ManufacturerLot No.LRBNo. UsedAction
IMP SHLDR HUM SOCK PLS4 36MM - LOG4349021GenericIMP SHLDR HUM SOCK PLS4 36MMENOVIS-CDRM_1195501386P1354Right1Implanted

Procedure:
Patient was identified as, medical record number, in the preop holding area. Consent was reviewed with patient. Risks, benefits, and alternatives were discussed. All questions were answered. Surgical site was marked. Patient was taken back to the OR and transferred onto the operative table.

General anesthesia was administered. SCDs were placed on both legs. The patient was carefully positioned in the beach-chair position, padding all prominences. The operative extremity was prepped and draped in the usual sterile fashion. The patient was given pre-operative antibiotics. Verification of surgical site, patient identification, and surgical procedure planned was then confirmed by the circulating nurse and anesthetic team.

We used the previous deltopectoral incision and interval. About 300 cc of serosanguinous fluid poured out of the incision. No frank purulent material observed, but extensive discolored fibrinous material most consistent with a developing large seroma wall was observed. Blunt finger dissection was used to explore the deltopec interval and a deltoid retractor was used once we have the interval developed. I saw prosthesis and well repaired subscapularis. No frank pus was encountered but fibrinous tissue surrounding the prosthesis. As some shoulder infection can be indolent, decision was made to take down the subscap repair, dislocate the shoulder, do the poly-exchange, so we can wash out the posterior shoulder as well. I carefully removed the fiberwire suture from the previous subscap repair without damaging the tendon. Then gently dislocated the shoulder atraumatically. It was found to be very stable. Then we removed the poly with an osteotome; took deep fibrinous tissue in the joint for culture, then washed the joint copiously with bactisure, followed by 6L of normal saline. Once we were satisfied. We changed to clean set up and instruments. We placed new poly and reduced the shoulder without complication. Shoulder was taken through ROM, found to be smooth with no impingement or instability. I drilled two bone tunnels with a 2-0 drill bit in the LT and repaired the subscap back to its footprint with 2 number 2 fiberwire sutures. We placed vancomycin powder. Then I did extensive debridement to the large cyst wall to bleeding tissue to facilitate healing. I closed the deltopec interval. Then closed the cyst wall/dead space with 2-0 PDS sutures, followed by subcuticular 2-0 PDS, then 3-0 nylon in interrupted fashion. Patient had reactions to adhesive dressings in the past, so we used xeroform, gauze, ABDs, metapore tapes to prevent further irritation/reaction.

Patient tolerated procedure well, and was taken to postop recovery in stable condition.

Postop plan:
Follow intra-op culture
ID consult as inpatient
 
The humeral component (liner) was removed and exchanged. This is a one-stage, one-component revision TSA, and would be coded as 23473.

It is debatable whether, since the stem was retained, you would use a -52 modifier. I personally would not do so unless it was a particularly easy case. In this case, the debridement and washout work justify using the unmodified code. Evacuation of the hematoma, synovectomy/debridement, and subscapularis takedown and repair are integral to the service and would not be separately coded.
 
The most recent information I had from AAOS (4 years ago) was that poly exchange (single stage treatment of arthroplasty infection by arthrotomy, washout, and liner exchange) is not reported with revision arthroplasty codes.
The direction was that arthrotomy codes 27030 (hip), 27310 (knee), 23040 (shoulder), and 23044 (AC, SC) describe I&D of the joint space for infection. The previous course info you have was following this.
The problem is the work RVUs have a huge difference if you compare 23040 to 23473.

I have seen these coded all different ways. I&D of the joint, single component exchange, single component exchange w/ 52, and incorrectly with other codes that are not related.

I agree, using I&D does not account for the work being done, that is just the last direction I have seen. I would be more inclined to use the single component revision code as well even though it was the liner and not the stem. I think it depends on the case. Agree, all of the other work would be included in the service. The subscap repair is not separately reportable.

CPT has not kept up with arthroplasty procedures and advances. I wish there were better codes for the types of cases we are seeing now.
 
The most recent information I had from AAOS (4 years ago) was that poly exchange (single stage treatment of arthroplasty infection by arthrotomy, washout, and liner exchange) is not reported with revision arthroplasty codes.
The direction was that arthrotomy codes 27030 (hip), 27310 (knee), 23040 (shoulder), and 23044 (AC, SC) describe I&D of the joint space for infection. The previous course info you have was following this.
The problem is the work RVUs have a huge difference if you compare 23040 to 23473.

I have seen these coded all different ways. I&D of the joint, single component exchange, single component exchange w/ 52, and incorrectly with other codes that are not related.

I agree, using I&D does not account for the work being done, that is just the last direction I have seen. I would be more inclined to use the single component revision code as well even though it was the liner and not the stem. I think it depends on the case. Agree, all of the other work would be included in the service. The subscap repair is not separately reportable.

CPT has not kept up with arthroplasty procedures and advances. I wish there were better codes for the types of cases we are seeing now.
Thank you for your reply!
 
The humeral component (liner) was removed and exchanged. This is a one-stage, one-component revision TSA, and would be coded as 23473.

It is debatable whether, since the stem was retained, you would use a -52 modifier. I personally would not do so unless it was a particularly easy case. In this case, the debridement and washout work justify using the unmodified code. Evacuation of the hematoma, synovectomy/debridement, and subscapularis takedown and repair are integral to the service and would not be separately coded.
Thank you for your reply!
 
The most recent information I had from AAOS (4 years ago) was that poly exchange (single stage treatment of arthroplasty infection by arthrotomy, washout, and liner exchange) is not reported with revision arthroplasty codes.
The direction was that arthrotomy codes 27030 (hip), 27310 (knee), 23040 (shoulder), and 23044 (AC, SC) describe I&D of the joint space for infection. The previous course info you have was following this.
The problem is the work RVUs have a huge difference if you compare 23040 to 23473.

I have seen these coded all different ways. I&D of the joint, single component exchange, single component exchange w/ 52, and incorrectly with other codes that are not related.

I agree, using I&D does not account for the work being done, that is just the last direction I have seen. I would be more inclined to use the single component revision code as well even though it was the liner and not the stem. I think it depends on the case. Agree, all of the other work would be included in the service. The subscap repair is not separately reportable.

CPT has not kept up with arthroplasty procedures and advances. I wish there were better codes for the types of cases we are seeing now.

Amy,

I sit on the AAOS Coding Committee and we have discussed these types of cases extensively over the last several years. We have almost exclusively recommended the revision arthroplasty code with a -52 modifier.

If the surgeon in question wants to, they could submit the question to us formally through AAOS/Code-X, but, as far as the AAOS CCRC, it's considered pretty much settled unless there are extenuating circumstances. In either case, I would expect denials and appeals with documentation from third party payors. It's unfortunately the way of the world right now...
 
Amy,

I sit on the AAOS Coding Committee and we have discussed these types of cases extensively over the last several years. We have almost exclusively recommended the revision arthroplasty code with a -52 modifier.

If the surgeon in question wants to, they could submit the question to us formally through AAOS/Code-X, but, as far as the AAOS CCRC, it's considered pretty much settled unless there are extenuating circumstances. In either case, I would expect denials and appeals with documentation from third party payors. It's unfortunately the way of the world right now...
Thanks. Yes, what I had was from a KZA seminar in conjunction with AAOS but it was 4 years out of date. Definitely on board with the revision codes. I have been out of ortho for a few years so some of my resources are no longer up to date.
 
Top