CAM 60138

Percutaneous Balloon Kyphoplasty and Mechanical Vertebral Augmentation

Category:Radiology   Last Reviewed:May 2019
Department(s):Medical Affairs   Next Review:May 2020
Original Date:May 2013    

Description
Percutaneous balloon kyphoplasty, radiofrequency kyphoplasty, and mechanical vertebral augmentation with Kiva are interventional techniques involving the fluoroscopically guided injection of polymethylmethacrylate into a cavity created in the vertebral body with a balloon or mechanical device. These techniques have been investigated as options to provide mechanical support and symptomatic relief in patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture or those with osteolytic lesions of the spine (i.e., multiple myeloma, metastatic malignancies).

For individuals who have osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures who receive balloon kyphoplasty, or mechanical vertebral augmentation (Kiva), the evidence includes randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses. Relevant outcomes include symptoms, functional outcomes, quality of life, hospitalizations, and treatment-related morbidity. A meta-analysis and moderately sized unblinded RCT have compared kyphoplasty with conservative care and found short-term benefits in pain and other outcomes. Other RCTs, summarized in a meta-analysis, have reported similar outcomes for kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty. Two randomized trials that compared mechanical vertebral augmentation (Kiva) with kyphoplasty have reported similar outcomes for both procedures. A major limitation of all these RCTs is the lack of a sham procedure. Due to the possible sham effect observed in the recent trials of vertebroplasty, the validity of the results from non-sham-controlled trials is unclear. Therefore, whether these improvements represent a true treatment effect is uncertain. The evidence is insufficient to determine the effects of the technology on health outcomes.

For individuals who have osteolytic vertebral compression fractures who receive balloon kyphoplasty or mechanical vertebral augmentation (Kiva), the evidence includes RCTs, case series, and a systematic review of these studies. Relevant outcomes include symptoms, functional outcomes, quality of life, hospitalizations, and treatment-related morbidity. Two RCTs have compared balloon kyphoplasty with conservative management, and another has compared Kiva with balloon kyphoplasty. Results of these trials, along with case series, would suggest a reduction in pain, disability, and analgesic use in patients with cancer-related compression fractures. However, because the results of the comparative studies of vertebroplasty have suggested possible placebo or natural history effects, the evidence these studies provide is insufficient to warrant conclusions about the effect of kyphoplasty on health outcomes. The evidence is insufficient to determine the effects of the technology on health outcomes.

After consideration of clinical input, we concluded that, although the scientific evidence does not permit conclusions about the impact on health outcomes and that comparative studies with long-term outcomes are lacking, numerous case series, including large prospective reports, have consistently shown that vertebroplasty and percutaneous balloon kyphoplasty may alleviate pain and improve function in patients with osteoporotic vertebral fractures that have failed to respond to conservative treatment (at least 6 weeks) with analgesics, physical therapy, and rest. More recent randomized trials, which have compared percutaneous balloon kyphoplasty with medical management, have also reported benefit. Given the absence of alternative treatment options and the morbidity associated with extended bedrest, percutaneous balloon kyphoplasty and mechanical vertebral augmentation may be considered reasonable treatment options in patients with vertebral fractures who fail to improve after 6 weeks of conservative therapy and, therefore, may be considered medically necessary both for this patient population and populations with severe pain due to osteolytic lesions of the spine related to multiple myeloma or metastatic malignancies.

For individuals who have osteoporotic or osteolytic vertebral compression fractures who receive radiofrequency kyphoplasty, the evidence includes a systematic review and an RCT. Relevant outcomes include symptoms, functional outcomes, quality of life, hospitalizations, and treatment-related morbidity. The only RCT (N=80) identified showed similar results between radiofrequency kyphoplasty and balloon kyphoplasty. The systematic review suggested that radiofrequency kyphoplasty is superior to balloon kyphoplasty in pain relief, but the review itself was limited by the inclusion of a small number of studies as well as possible bias. Corroboration of these results in a larger number of patients would be needed to determine with greater certainty whether radiofrequency kyphoplasty provides outcomes similar to balloon kyphoplasty. The evidence is insufficient to determine the effects of the technology on health outcomes.

Background 
OSTEOPOROTIC VERTEBRAL COMPRESSION FRACTURE
Osteoporotic compression fractures are common. It is estimated that up to 50% of women and 25% of men will have a vertebral fracture at some point in their lives. However, only about one-third of vertebral fractures reach clinical diagnosis, and most symptomatic fractures will heal within a few weeks or 1 month. A minority of patients will exhibit chronic pain following osteoporotic compression fracture that presents challenges for medical management.

Treatment
Chronic symptoms do not tend to respond to the management strategies for acute pain such as bedrest, immobilization or bracing device, and analgesic medication, sometimes including narcotic analgesics. The source of chronic pain after vertebral compression fracture may not be from the vertebra itself but may be predominantly related to strain on muscles and ligaments secondary to kyphosis. This type of pain frequently is not improved with analgesics and may be better addressed through exercise. 

OSTEOLYTIC VERTEBRAL BODY FRACTURES
Vertebral body fractures can also be pathologic, due to osteolytic lesions, most commonly from metastatic tumors. Metastatic malignant disease involving the spine generally involves the vertebral bodies, with pain being the most frequent complaint.

Treatment
While radiotherapy and chemotherapy are frequently effective in reducing tumor burden and associated symptoms, pain relief may be delayed days to weeks, depending on tumor response. Further, these approaches rely on bone remodeling to regain vertebral body strength, which may necessitate supportive bracing to minimize the risk of vertebral body collapse during healing.

Kyphoplasty
Balloon kyphoplasty is a variant of vertebroplasty and uses a specialized bone tamp with an inflatable balloon to expand a collapsed vertebral body as close as possible to its natural height before injection of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA). Radiofrequency kyphoplasty (also known as radiofrequency targeted vertebral augmentation) is a modification of balloon kyphoplasty. In this procedure, a small diameter articulating osteotome creates paths across the vertebra. An ultra-high viscosity cement is injected into the fractured vertebral body, and radiofrequency is used to achieve the desired consistency of the cement. The ultra-high viscosity cement is designed to restore height and alignment to the fractured vertebra, along with stabilizing the fracture.

It has been proposed that kyphoplasty may provide an analgesic effect through mechanical stabilization of a fractured or otherwise weakened vertebral body. However, other possible mechanisms of effect have been postulated, one of which is thermal damage to intraosseous nerve fibers, given that PMMA undergoes a heat-releasing (exothermic) reaction during its hardening process.

Vertebral Augmentation
Kiva is another mechanical vertebral augmentation technique that uses an implant for structural support of the vertebral body to provide a reservoir for bone cement. The Kiva VCF Treatment System consists of a shaped memory coil and an implant, which is filled with bone cement. The coil is inserted into the vertebral body over a removable guidewire. The coil reconfigures itself into a stack of loops within the vertebral body and can be customized by changing the number of loops of the coil. The implant, made from PEEK-OPTIMA, a biocompatible polymer, is deployed over the coil. The coil is then retracted, and PMMA is injected through the lumen of the implant. The PMMA cement flows through small slots in the center of the implant, which fixes the implant to the vertebral body and contains the PMMA in a cylindrical column. The proposed advantage of the Kiva system is a reduction in cement leakage.

Outcome Measures
For treatment of osteoporosis and malignancy with percutaneous kyphoplasty, the primary beneficial outcomes of interest are relief of pain and improvement in the ability to function. Kyphoplasty may also restore lost vertebral body height and reduce kyphotic deformity. Potential health outcomes related to kyphotic deformity include pulmonary or gastrointestinal compression and associated symptoms, and vertebral compression fractures may be associated with lower health-related quality of life.

Regulatory Status  
Kyphoplasty is a surgical procedure and, as such, is not subject to regulation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Balloon kyphoplasty requires the use of an inflatable bone tamp. In July 1998, one such tamp, the KyphX® inflatable bone tamp (Medtronic), was cleared for marketing by FDA through the 510(k) process. Other devices with FDA 510(k) marketing clearance include the AVAmax® Vertebral Balloon system (CareFusion), NeuroTherm Parallax® Balloon Inflatable Bone Tamp (NeuroTherm), Stryker iVAS® Balloon catheter, and Synthes Synflate™ Vertebral Balloon System (Synthes [West Chester, PA]). StabiliT® Vertebral Augmentation System (Merit Medical) for radiofrequency vertebral augmentation was cleared for marketing in 2009. FDA product code NDN.

In 2014, the Kiva® VCF Treatment System (Benvenue Medical) was cleared for marketing by FDA through the 510(k) process. FDA product code NDN.   

PMMA bone cement was available as a drug product before enactment of FDA’s device regulation and was at first considered what FDA termed a "transitional device." It was transitioned to a class III device and then to a class II device, which required future 510(k) submissions to meet "special controls" instead of "general controls" to assure safety and effectiveness. In July 2004, KyphX® HV-RTM bone cement was cleared for marketing by FDA through the 510(k) process for the treatment of pathologic fractures of the vertebral body due to osteoporosis, cancer, or benign lesions using a balloon kyphoplasty procedure. Subsequently, other products such as Spine-Fix® Biomimetic Bone Cement, KYPHON® HV-R® Bone Cement, and Osteopal® V (Heraeus) have received issued 510(k) marketing clearance for the fixation of pathologic fractures of the vertebral body using vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty procedures. FDA product code: NDN.

Related Policies
60125 Percutaneous Vertebroplasty and Sacroplasty

Policy
Balloon kyphoplasty or mechanical vertebral augmentation using Kiva may be considered MEDICALLY NECESSARY for the treatment of symptomatic osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures that have failed to respond to conservative treatment (e.g., analgesics, physical therapy, rest) for at least 6 weeks.

Balloon kyphoplasty or mechanical vertebral augmentation using Kiva may be considered MEDICALLY NECESSARY for the treatment of severe pain due to osteolytic lesions of the spine related to multiple myeloma or metastatic malignancies.

Balloon kyphoplasty or mechanical vertebral augmentation using Kiva are considered INVESTIGATIONAL for all other indications, including use in acute vertebral fractures due to osteoporosis or trauma.

Radiofrequency kyphoplasty is considered INVESTIGATIONAL.   

Mechanical vertebral augmentation using any other device is considered INVESTIGATIONAL.

Policy Guidelines
Based on currently available evidence, health outcomes for kyphoplasty, Kiva, and vertebroplasty appear to be equivalent, therefore, the “least costly alternative” provision of the medically necessary definition may apply (see Benefit Application section).

Coding
There are CPT codes that combine the kyphoplasty procedure with all of the necessary imaging guidance:

22513 Percutaneous vertebral augmentation, including cavity creation (fracture reduction and bone biopsy included when performed) using mechanical device (eg, kyphoplasty), 1 vertebral body, unilateral or bilateral cannulation, inclusive of all imaging guidance; thoracic
22514 lumbar
22515 each additional thoracic or lumbar vertebral body (List separately in addition to code for primary procedure).

Benefit Application
Based on currently available evidence, health outcomes for vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty appear to be comparable. If more costly than vertebroplasty, kyphoplasty would be considered not medically necessary using the Medical Policy Reference Manual definition of medical necessity. Benefit or contract language describing the "least costly alternative" may be applicable for this choice of treatment.

BlueCard/National Account Issues
State or federal mandates (e.g., FEP) may dictate that all devices approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) may not be considered investigational. However, this policy considers specific applications of an FDA-approved device as investigational. Alternatively, FDA-approved devices may be only assessed on the basis of their medical necessity.

Percutaneous kyphoplasty may be performed by interventional radiologists or orthopedic surgeons.

Percutaneous kyphoplasty is a specialized procedure, and, thus, some patients may seek out-of-network referral.

Rationale 
This review has been informed by a 2000 TEC Assessment,1 updated with TEC Assessments in 2004,2 2005,3 2008,4 2009,5 and 2010.6

Evidence reviews assess the clinical evidence to determine whether the use of a technology improves the net health outcome. Broadly defined, health outcomes are length of life, quality of life, and ability to function -- including benefits and harms. Every clinical condition has specific outcomes that are important to patients and to managing the course of that condition. Validated outcome measures are necessary to ascertain whether a condition improves or worsens; and whether the magnitude of that change is clinically significant. The net health outcome is a balance of benefits and harms.

To assess whether the evidence is sufficient to draw conclusions about the net health outcome of a technology, 2 domains are examined: the relevance and the quality and credibility. To be relevant, studies must represent one or more intended clinical uses of the technology in the intended population and compare an effective and appropriate alternative at a comparable intensity. For some conditions, the alternative will be supportive care or surveillance. The quality and credibility of the evidence depend on study design and conduct, minimizing bias and confounding that can generate incorrect findings. The randomized controlled trial (RCT) is preferred to assess efficacy; however, in some circumstances, nonrandomized studies may be adequate. RCTs are rarely large enough or long enough to capture less common adverse events and long-term effects. Other types of studies can be used for these purposes and to assess generalizability to broader clinical populations and settings of clinical practice.

The natural history of pain and disability associated with these conditions vary. Also, pain and functional ability are subjective outcomes, susceptible to placebo effects. Nonspecific or placebo effects can be quite large for an invasive procedure such as kyphoplasty for which there is no blinding.7,8 The placebo effect may be on the order of 6 to 7 mm on a 100-mm scale, for invasive procedures,7-10 and even larger effects (10%) have been observed in the sham-controlled vertebroplasty trials.11,12 Therefore, sham-controlled comparison studies are important to demonstrate the clinical effectiveness of kyphoplasty over and above any associated nonspecific or placebo effects.

Adverse effects related to kyphoplasty are the primary harms to be considered. Principal safety concerns relate to the incidence and consequences of leakage of the injected polymethylmethacrylate.

OSTEOPOROTIC VERTEBRAL COMPRESSION FRACTURES
Balloon Kyphoplasty vs Conservative Care
Wardlaw et al (2009) reported on the FREE trial, a nonblinded industry-sponsored, multisite RCT in which 300 adults with 1 to 3 painful osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (VCFs) of less than 3 months in duration were assigned to kyphoplasty or conservative care.13 Twenty-four-month results were reported by Boonen et al (2011) and by Van Meirhaeghe et al (2013).14,15 Scores for the primary outcome, 1-month change in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Physical Component Summary score, were significantly higher for those in the kyphoplasty group. The difference between groups was 5.2 points (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.9 to 7.4 points; p<0.001). Kyphoplasty was associated with greater improvements in 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Physical Component Summary scores at 6-month follow-up (3.39 points), but not at 12- or 24-month follow-ups. Greater improvement in back pain was observed over 24 months for kyphoplasty (-1.49 points) and remained statistically significant at 24 months. Participants in the kyphoplasty group also reported greater improvements in quality of life and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) scores at short-term follow-up. At 12 months, fewer kyphoplasty patients (26.4% vs 42.1%) had received physical therapy or walking aids, back braces, wheelchairs, miscellaneous aids, or other therapy. Fewer kyphoplasty patients used opioid medications through 6 months (29.8% vs 42.9%) and fewer pain medications through 12 months (51.7% vs. 68.3%). Other differences between groups were no longer apparent at 12 months, possibly due to natural healing of fractures.

Edidin et al (2011) reported on mortality risk in Medicare patients who had VCFs and had been treated with vertebroplasty, kyphoplasty, or nonoperatively.16 This study was industry-funded. Using the U.S. Medicare dataset, the authors identified 858,978 patients who had VCFs between 2005 and 2008. The dataset included 119,253 kyphoplasty patients and 63,693 vertebroplasty patients. Survival was calculated from the index diagnosis date until death or the end of follow-up (up to 4 years). Cox regression analysis was used to evaluate the joint effect of multiple covariates, which included sex, age, race/ethnicity, patient health status, type of diagnosed fracture, site of service, physician specialty, socioeconomic status, year of diagnosis, and census region. After adjusting for covariates, patients in the surgical cohorts (vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty) had a higher adjusted survival rate (60.8%) than patients in the nonsurgical cohort (50.0%) and were 37% less likely to die. The adjusted survival rates for vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty were 57.3% and 62.8%, respectively, a 23% lower relative risk for kyphoplasty. As noted by the authors, a causal relation could not be determined from this study.

Balloon Kyphoplasty vs Vertebroplasty
Chang et al (2015) reported on a meta-analysis of prospective studies that compared vertebroplasty with kyphoplasty.17 Included were 6 RCTs and 14 prospective comparative studies (total N=1,429 patients). Outcomes were compared for the short (≤1 week after surgery) and long (>6 months) terms. The time to perform vertebroplasty was significantly shorter than kyphoplasty. There was no significant difference between groups in visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores or Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores at either short- or long-term follow-up. There was no significant difference between treatments in adjacent-level fractures. Cobb angle at long-term follow-up was improved in the kyphoplasty group compared with vertebroplasty. Kyphoplasty had a significantly lower number of procedures with cement extravasion, although the percentage of cases with cement leakage is high for both procedures. For example, an RCT by Dohm et al (2014; KAVIAR study) reported overall cement extravasion in 157 (73.4%) of 214 levels treated with kyphoplasty compared with 164 (81.6%) of 201 levels treated with vertebroplasty (p=0.047).18 Intravascular cement extravasion occurred in 59 (27.6%) of 214 levels treated with kyphoplasty compared with 76 (37.8%) of 201 levels treated with vertebroplasty. The clinical significance of a 10% difference in cement extravasion is uncertain; the occurrences of device-related cement embolism were similar, with 1 (0.5%) case in each group. Kyphosis correction was better in the kyphoplasty group by 1.42º (p=0.036). Pain and function improvements were similar for both procedures.

In a Bayesian network meta-analysis, Zhao et al (2017) examined the efficacy and safety of vertebroplasty, kyphoplasty, and conservative treatment for the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures.19 Sixteen RCTs were identified (total N=2,046 participants; vertebroplasty, 816; kyphoplasty, 478; conservative treatment, 752). Eleven of the RCTs compared vertebroplasty with conservative treatment; 2 RCTs compared kyphoplasty with conservative treatment, and 3 RCTs compared kyphoplasty with vertebroplasty. Each trial assessed at least one of the following: VAS, the RMDQ, the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, and the observance of any new fractures. Network meta-analysis demonstrated that kyphoplasty was superior to conservative therapy as assessed by VAS (mean difference, 0.94; 95% CI, -0.40 to 2.39), European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (mean difference -0.10; 95% CI, -0.17 to -0.01), and RMDQ (mean difference, 5.72; 95% CI, 1.05 to 10.60). Insufficient data were present to complete pairwise comparison of kyphoplasty with conservative treatment for some metrics. No significant differences were found between vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty for pain relief, daily function, and quality of life. Kyphoplasty was associated with the lowest risk of new fractures, while vertebroplasty was the most effective treatment for pain relief. This review was limited by significant heterogeneity across measured outcomes and length of follow-up in studies; the presence of performing and reporting bias in studies was also a concern.

Mechanical Vertebral Augmentation With Kiva vs Balloon Kyphoplasty
Vertebral augmentation with the Kiva VCF System was compared with balloon kyphoplasty in a pivotal noninferiority RCT reported by Tutton et al (2015).20 This industry-sponsored, multicenter open-label (KAST) trial was conducted in 300 patients with 1 or 2 osteoporotic VCFs. Included were patients with VAS scores for back pain of at least 70 mm (/100 mm) after 2 to 6 weeks of conservative care or VAS scores of at least 50 mm after 6 weeks of conservative care, and ODI scores of at least 30%. The primary composite end point at 12 months was a reduction in fracture pain by at least 15 mm on the VAS, maintenance or improvement in function on the ODI, and absence of device-related serious adverse events. The primary end point was met by 94.5% of patients treated with Kiva and 97.6% of patients treated with kyphoplasty (Bayesian posterior probability of 99.92% for noninferiority, using as-treated analysis). In the 285 treated patients, Kiva resulted in a mean improvement of 70.8 points in VAS scores, compared with a 71.8-point improvement for kyphoplasty. There was a 38.1-point improvement in ODI score for the Kiva group compared with a 42.2-point improvement for the kyphoplasty group. There were no device-related serious adverse events. The total volume of cement was 50% less with Kiva, and there was less cement extravasion (16.9%) compared with kyphoplasty (25.8%).

Korovessis et al (2013) reported on a randomized trial comparing mechanical vertebral augmentation with the Kiva device with balloon kyphoplasty in 180 patients with osteoporotic VCFs.21 The groups showed similar improvements in VAS scores for back pain, 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey scores, and ODI scores. For example, there was a more than 5.5-point improvement in VAS scores in 54% of patients in the Kiva group and 43% of patients in the balloon kyphoplasty group. Radiologic measures of vertebral height were similar in both groups. Kiva reduced the Gardner kyphotic angle, while residual kyphosis of more than 5º was more frequently observed in the balloon kyphoplasty group. Patients and outcome assessors were reported to be unaware of group assignments, although it is not clear if the Kiva device was visible on radiographs. Cement leakage into the canal only occurred in 2 patients treated with balloon kyphoplasty, necessitating decompression, compared with none following the Kiva procedure. 

Section Summary: Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures
A moderately sized unblinded RCT reported short-term benefits of kyphoplasty for pain and other outcomes in patients with painful osteoporotic fractures compared with conservative care. Other relevant studies, including additional RCTs and meta-analysis studies, found similar outcomes for kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty.

For mechanical vertebral augmentation with Kiva, evidence includes a large industry-sponsored, multicenter investigational device exemption trial and a large independent randomized trial. These randomized comparative trials showed outcomes similar to kyphoplasty.

OSTEOLYTIC VERTEBRAL COMPRESSION FRACTURES
Health Quality Ontario (2016) assessed vertebral augmentation for cancer-related VCFs.22 The assessment identified 33 reports with 1,690 patients who were treated with kyphoplasty for spinal metastatic cancers, multiple myeloma, or hemangiomas. For cancer-related VCFs there were 5 case series (110 patients) on multiple myeloma and 6 reports (2 RCTs, 4 case series; 308 patients) on mixed cancers with spinal metastases. Vertebral augmentation resulted in reductions in pain intensity scores, opioid or other analgesic use, and disability scores. One RCT (N=129) compared kyphoplasty with nonsurgical management for cancer-related VCFs, reporting that pain scores, pain-related disability, and health-related quality of life were significantly improved in the kyphoplasty group than in the usual care group. The second RCT compared the Kiva device with kyphoplasty in 47 patients with cancer-related compression fractures, finding no significant differences between groups for improvements in VAS pain and ODI scores.

Berenson et al (2011) reported on the results of an international multicenter RCT.23 They enrolled 134 patients with cancer who were at least 21 years of age. Participants had at least 1 and not more than 3 painful VCFs. The primary outcome was change in functional status from baseline at 1 month as measured by the RMDQ. Treatment allocation was not blinded, and the primary outcome at 1 month was analyzed using all participants with data both at baseline and at 1 month. Participants needed to have a pain score of at least 4 on a 0-to-10 scale. Crossover to the balloon kyphoplasty arm was allowed after 1 month. Reviewers reported scores for the kyphoplasty and nonsurgical groups of 17.6 and 18.2 at baseline, respectively, and 9.10 and 18.0 at 1-month follow-ups (between-group difference in scores, p<0.001).

Section Summary: Osteolytic Vertebral Compression Fractures
Results of RCTs and case series would suggest vertebral augmentation reduces pain, disability, and analgesic use in patients with cancer-related compression fractures. However, because the results of the comparative studies of vertebroplasty have also suggested possible placebo or natural history effects, the evidence provided is insufficient to warrant conclusions about the effect of kyphoplasty on health outcomes.

RADIOFREQUENCY KYPHOPLASTY
Petersen et al (2016) reported on an RCT with 80 patients that compared radiofrequency kyphoplasty (RFK) with balloon kyphoplasty.24 Patients had been admitted to the hospital for severe back pain and met criteria for surgery after failed conservative treatment. All had osteoporotic compression fractures. Before treatment, VAS pain scores on movement were similar in both groups (8.4 in the balloon kyphoplasty group vs 8.0 in the RFK group). Postoperatively, VAS scores improved by 4.6 after balloon kyphoplasty and 4.4 after RFK (p=NS). Pain at 12 months also did not differ significantly between both groups, with 58% of patients in the balloon kyphoplasty group and 66% of patients in the RFK group reporting no to mild pain on movement (p=NS). There was a trend for greater restoration of the kyphosis angle.

Feng et al (2017) performed a meta-analysis comparing radiofrequency kyphoplasty with BK in patients with VCFs.25 Six studies (total N=833 patients) evaluating VCFs were identified. The main outcomes were pain relief (VAS), functionality improvement (ODI), operation time, reduction of deformity (i.e., the restoration of vertebral height and kyphosis angle), and incidence of cement leakage. VAS scores improved for both groups after the respective procedure; however, VAS score dropped 3.96 points more in the radiofrequency kyphoplasty group (95% CI, 1.67 to 6.24; p=0.001), with improvement persisting until the 12-month mark. While functionality improvement was initially improved more after RFK than BK (p=0.04), the difference between the 2 groups was not significant after a year (p=0.6). No significant difference in cement leakage between groups was observed. This review was limited by the small number of studies included as well as the presence of significant bias within these studies.

Adverse Events
Yi et al (2014) assessed the occurrence of new VCFs after treatment with cement augmenting procedures (vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty) vs conservative treatment in an RCT with 290 patients (363 affected vertebrae).26 Surgically treated patients were discharged the next day. Patients treated conservatively (pain medication, bedrest, a body brace, physical therapy) had a mean length of stay of 13.7 days. Return to usual activity occurred at 1 week for 87.6% of surgically treated patients and 2 months for 59.2% of conservatively treated patients. All patients were evaluated with radiographs and magnetic resonance imaging at 6 months and then at yearly intervals until the last follow-up session. At a mean follow-up of 49.4 months (range, 36-80 months), 10.7% of patients had experienced 42 new symptomatic VCFs. There was no significant difference in the incidence of new vertebral fractures between the operative (n=18; 9 adjacent, 9 nonadjacent) and conservative (n=24; 5 adjacent, 16 nonadjacent, 3 same level) groups, but the mean time to a new fracture was significantly shorter in the surgical group (9.7 months) compared with the nonoperative group (22.4 months).

Section Summary: Radiofrequency Kyphoplasty
For RFK, the evidence includes a meta-analysis study and an RCT. While the RCT showed similar results compared with balloon kyphoplasty, an improvement in immediate pain relief after RCT was noted in the meta-analysis. Further high-quality studies are needed to determine with greater certainty whether RFK has outcomes similar to balloon kyphoplasty.

The major limitation of all these RCTs was the lack of a sham procedure. Due to the possible sham effect observed in the recent trials of vertebroplasty, the validity of results from non-sham-controlled trials is questionable. Therefore, it is not possible to conclude that these improvements are a true treatment effect. Cement leakage, although slightly reduced in kyphoplasty relative to vertebroplasty, remains a concern.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
For individuals who have osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures who receive balloon kyphoplasty, or mechanical vertebral augmentation (Kiva), the evidence includes RCTs and meta-analyses. Relevant outcomes include symptoms, functional outcomes, quality of life, hospitalizations, and treatment-related morbidity. A meta-analysis and moderately sized unblinded RCT have compared kyphoplasty with conservative care and found short-term benefits in pain and other outcomes. Other RCTs, summarized in a meta-analysis, have reported similar outcomes for kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty. Two randomized trials that compared mechanical vertebral augmentation (Kiva) with kyphoplasty have reported similar outcomes for both procedures. A major limitation of all these RCTs is the lack of a sham procedure. Due to the possible sham effect observed in the recent trials of vertebroplasty, the validity of the results from non-sham-controlled trials is unclear. Therefore, whether these improvements represent a true treatment effect is uncertain. The evidence is insufficient to determine the effects of the technology on health outcomes.

For individuals who have osteolytic vertebral compression fractures who receive balloon kyphoplasty or mechanical vertebral augmentation (Kiva), the evidence includes RCTs, case series, and a systematic review of these studies. Relevant outcomes include symptoms, functional outcomes, quality of life, hospitalizations, and treatment-related morbidity. Two RCTs have compared balloon kyphoplasty with conservative management, and another has compared Kiva with balloon kyphoplasty. Results of these trials, along with case series, would suggest a reduction in pain, disability, and analgesic use in patients with cancer-related compression fractures. However, because the results of the comparative studies of vertebroplasty have suggested possible placebo or natural history effects, the evidence these studies provide is insufficient to warrant conclusions about the effect of kyphoplasty on health outcomes. The evidence is insufficient to determine the effects of the technology on health outcomes.

For individuals who have osteoporotic or osteolytic vertebral compression fractures who receive radiofrequency kyphoplasty, the evidence includes a systematic review and an RCT. Relevant outcomes include symptoms, functional outcomes, quality of life, hospitalizations, and treatment-related morbidity. The only RCT (N=80) identified showed similar results between radiofrequency kyphoplasty and balloon kyphoplasty. The systematic review suggested that radiofrequency kyphoplasty is superior to balloon kyphoplasty in pain relief, but the review itself was limited by the inclusion of a small number of studies as well as possible bias. Corroboration of these results in a larger number of patients would be needed to determine with greater certainty whether radiofrequency kyphoplasty provides outcomes similar to balloon kyphoplasty. The evidence is insufficient to determine the effects of the technology on health outcomes.

CLINICAL INPUT FROM PHYSICIAN SPECIALTY SOCIETIES AND ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTERS
While the various physician specialty societies and academic medical centers may collaborate with and make recommendations during this process, through the provision of appropriate reviewers, input received does not represent an endorsement or position statement by the physician specialty societies or academic medical centers, unless otherwise noted.

2014 Input
In response to requests, input was received from 2 physician specialty societies and 3 academic medical centers while this policy was under review in 2014. Input was sought on the treatment of acute vertebral fractures when severe pain has led to hospitalization or persists at a level that prevents ambulation, and on the treatment of traumatic fractures that have remained symptomatic after 6 weeks of conservative treatment. Clinical input on these issues was mixed. 

2008 Input
In response to requests, input was received from 6 physician specialty societies (1 unsolicited) and 2 academic medical centers while this policy was under review in 2008. All reviewers disagreed with the proposed policy, referring to a body of evidence from uncontrolled studies that supported the use of kyphoplasty.

PRACTICE GUIDELINES AND POSITION STATEMENTS
American College of Radiology et al
The American College of Radiology and 7 other surgical and radiologic specialty associations published a joint position statement on percutaneous vertebral augmentation in 2014.27 This document stated that percutaneous vertebral augmentation, using vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty and performed in a manner consistent with public standards, is a safe, efficacious, and durable procedure in appropriate patients with symptomatic osteoporotic and neoplastic fractures. The statement also indicated that these procedures be offered only when nonoperative medical therapy has not provided adequate pain relief, or pain is significantly altering the patient’s quality of life.  

Society of Interventional Radiology
In a 2014 quality improvement guideline on percutaneous vertebroplasty from the Society of Interventional Radiology, vertebral augmentation was recommended for compression fractures refractory to medical therapy.28 Failure of medical therapy includes the following situations:

  1. Patients who are "rendered nonambulatory as a result of pain from a weakened or fractured vertebral body, pain persisting at a level that prevents ambulation despite 24 hours of analgesic therapy"; 
  2. Patients with "sufficient pain from a weakened or fractured vertebral body that physical therapy is intolerable, pain persisting at that level despite 24 hours of analgesic therapy"; or
  3. Patients with "a weakened or fractured vertebral body, and unacceptable side effects such as excessive sedation, confusion, or constipation as a result of the analgesic therapy necessary to reduce pain to a tolerable level." 

American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons
The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons approved clinical guidelines (2010) on the treatment of osteoporotic spinal compression fractures, which had a weak recommendation for offering kyphoplasty to patients who "present with an osteoporotic spinal compression fracture on imaging with correlating clinical signs and symptoms and who are neurologically intact."29 The Academy indicated that future evidence could overturn existing evidence and that the quality of the current literature is poor. These recommendations were based on the literature reviewed through September 2009.  

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence issued a guidance (2013) that recommended percutaneous vertebroplasty and percutaneous balloon kyphoplasty as treatment options for treating osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures in persons having severe, ongoing pain after a recent unhealed vertebral fracture, despite optimal pain management, and whose pain has been confirmed through physical exam and imaging at the level of the fracture.30 This guidance did not address balloon kyphoplasty with stenting, because the manufacturer of the stenting system (Synthes) stated there is limited evidence for vertebral body stenting given that the system had only recently become available.

The Institute issued guidance (2008) on the diagnosis and management of adults with metastatic spinal cord compression. It was last reviewed in 2014, and placed on the static list (no major ongoing studies identified, with the next review in 5 years).31 The guidance stated that vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty should be considered for patients who have vertebral metastases, and no evidence of spinal cord compression or spinal instability if they have mechanical pain resistant to conventional pain management and vertebral body collapse. Surgery should only be performed when all appropriate specialists, agree. Despite a relatively small sample base, the Institute concluded the evidence suggests, in a select subset of patients, that early surgery may be more effective at maintaining mobility than radiotherapy.

U.S. PREVENTIVE SERVICES TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Not applicable. 

ONGOING AND UNPUBLISHED CLINICAL TRIALS
Some currently unpublished trials that might influence this review are listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Summary of Key Trials

NCT No.

Trial Name

Planned Enrollment

Completion Date

Ongoing

NCT02461810a

A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Comparative Clinical Study to Compare the Safety and Effectiveness of Two Vertebral Compression Fracture (VCF) Reduction Techniques: the SpineJack® and the KyphX Xpander® Inflatable Bone Tamp

152

Mar 2018 (ongoing)

NCT: national clinical trial.
aDenotes industry-sponsored or cosponsored trial.

References

  1. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association Technology Evaluation Center (TEC). Percutaneous Vertebroplasty. TEC Assessments. 2000;Volume 15:Tab 21.
  2. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association Technology Evaluation Center (TEC). Percutaneous kyphoplasty for vertebral fractures caused by osteoporosis and malignancy. TEC Assessments. 2004;Volume 19:Tab 12.
  3. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association Technology Evaluation Center (TEC). Percutaneous kyphoplasty for vertebral fractures caused by osteoporosis or malignancy. TEC Assessments. 2005;Volume 20:Tab 7.
  4. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association Technology Evaluation Center (TEC). Percutaneous vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty for vertebral fractures caused by osteoporosis or malignancy. TEC Assessments. 2008;Volume 23:Tab 5.
  5. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association Technology Evaluation Center (TEC). Percutaneous vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty for vertebral fractures caused by osteoporosis. TEC Assessments. 2009;Volume 24:Tab 7.
  6. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association Technology Evaluation Center (TEC). Percutaneous vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty for vertebral fractures caused by osteoporosis. TEC Assessments. 2010;Volume 25:Tab 9.
  7. Jarvik JG, Deyo RA. Cementing the evidence: time for a randomized trial of vertebroplasty. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. Sep 2000;21(8):1373-1374. PMID 11003266
  8. Moerman DE, Jonas WB. Deconstructing the placebo effect and finding the meaning response. Ann Intern Med. Mar 19 2002;136(6):471-476. PMID 11900500
  9. Hrobjartsson A, Gotzsche PC. Is the placebo powerless? An analysis of clinical trials comparing placebo with no treatment. N Engl J Med. May 24 2001;344(21):1594-1602. PMID 11372012
  10. Vase L, Riley JL, 3rd, Price DD. A comparison of placebo effects in clinical analgesic trials versus studies of placebo analgesia. Pain. Oct 2002;99(3):443-452. PMID 12406519
  11. Buchbinder R, Osborne RH, Ebeling PR, et al. A randomized trial of vertebroplasty for painful osteoporotic vertebral fractures. N Engl J Med. Aug 6 2009;361(6):557-568. PMID 19657121
  12. Kallmes DF, Comstock BA, Heagerty PJ, et al. A randomized trial of vertebroplasty for osteoporotic spinal fractures. N Engl J Med. Aug 6 2009;361(6):569-579. PMID 19657122
  13. Wardlaw D, Cummings SR, Van Meirhaeghe J, et al. Efficacy and safety of balloon kyphoplasty compared with non-surgical care for vertebral compression fracture (FREE): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. Mar 21 2009;373(9668):1016-1024. PMID 19246088
  14. Boonen S, Van Meirhaeghe J, Bastian L, et al. Balloon kyphoplasty for the treatment of acute vertebral compression fractures: 2-year results from a randomized trial. J Bone Miner Res. Jul 2011;26(7):1627-1637. PMID 21337428
  15. Van Meirhaeghe J, Bastian L, Boonen S, et al. A randomized trial of balloon kyphoplasty and nonsurgical management for treating acute vertebral compression fractures: vertebral body kyphosis correction and surgical parameters. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). May 20 2013;38(12):971-983. PMID 23446769
  16. Edidin AA, Ong KL, Lau E, et al. Mortality risk for operated and nonoperated vertebral fracture patients in the Medicare population. J Bone Miner Res. Jul 2011;26(7):1617-1626. PMID 21308780  
  17. Chang X, Lv YF, Chen B, et al. Vertebroplasty versus kyphoplasty in osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture: a meta-analysis of prospective comparative studies. Int Orthop. Mar 2015;39(3):491-500. PMID 25260399
  18. Dohm M, Black CM, Dacre A, et al. A randomized trial comparing balloon kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty for vertebral compression fractures due to osteoporosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. Dec 2014;35(12):2227-2236. PMID 25300981
  19. Zhao S, Xu CY, Zhu AR, et al. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of 3 treatments for patients with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: A network meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). Jun 2017;96(26):e7328. PMID 28658144
  20. Tutton SM, Pflugmacher R, Davidian M, et al. KAST Study: The Kiva System as a vertebral augmentation treatment-a safety and effectiveness trial: a randomized, noninferiority trial comparing the Kiva System with balloon kyphoplasty in treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). Jun 15 2015;40(12):865-875. PMID 25822543
  21. Korovessis P, Vardakastanis K, Repantis T, et al. Balloon kyphoplasty versus KIVA Vertebral augmentation-comparison of 2 techniques for osteoporotic vertebral body fractures: a prospective randomized study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). Feb 15 2013;38(4):292-299. PMID 23407406
  22. Health Quality Ontario. Vertebral augmentation involving vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty for cancer-related vertebral compression fractures: a systematic review. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. May 1 2016;16(11):1-202. PMID 27298655
  23. Berenson J, Pflugmacher R, Jarzem P, et al. Balloon kyphoplasty versus non-surgical fracture management for treatment of painful vertebral body compression fractures in patients with cancer: a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. Mar 2011;12(3):225-235. PMID 21333599
  24. Petersen A, Hartwig E, Koch EM, et al. Clinical comparison of postoperative results of balloon kyphoplasty (BKP) versus radiofrequency-targeted vertebral augmentation (RF-TVA): a prospective clinical study. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. Jan 2016;26(1):67-75. PMID 26482590
  25. Feng L, Shen JM, Feng C, et al. Comparison of radiofrequency kyphoplasty (RFK) and balloon kyphoplasty (BKP) in the treatment of vertebral compression fractures: A meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). Jun 2017;96(25):e7150. PMID 28640091
  26. Yi X, Lu H, Tian F, et al. Recompression in new levels after percutaneous vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty compared with conservative treatment. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. Jan 2014;134(1):21-30. PMID 24287674
  27. Barr JD, Jensen ME, Hirsch JA, et al. Position statement on percutaneous vertebral augmentation: a consensus statement developed by the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR), American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) and the Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS), American College of Radiology (ACR), American Society of Neuroradiology (ASNR), American Society of Spine Radiology (ASSR), Canadian Interventional Radiology Association (CIRA), and the Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery (SNIS). J Vasc Interv Radiol. Feb 2014;25(2):171-181. PMID 24325929
  28. Baerlocher MO, Saad WE, Dariushnia S, et al. Quality improvement guidelines for percutaneous vertebroplasty. J Vasc Interv Radiol. Feb 2014;25(2):165-170. PMID 24238815
  29. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS). The treatment of sumptomatic osteoporotic spinal compression fractures: Guideline and evidence report. 2010; http://www.aaos.org/research/guidelines/SCFguideline.pdf. Accessed March 26, 2018.
  30. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Percutaneous vertebroplasty and percutaneous balloon kyphoplasty for treating osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures [TA279]. 2013; https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta279. Accessed March 26, 2018.
  31. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Metastatic spinal cord compression in adults: risk assessment, diagnosis and management [CG75]. 2014; https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg75/chapter/1-Guidance. Accessed March 26, 2018.

Coding Section    

Codes

Number

Description

CPT

22513

Percutaneous vertebral augmentation, including cavity creation (fracture reduction and bone biopsy included when performed) using mechanical device (eg, kyphoplasty), 1 vertebral body, unilateral or bilateral cannulation, inclusive of all imaging guidance; thoracic (new code 01/01/15)

 

22514

lumbar (new code 01/01/15)

 

22515

each additional thoracic or lumbar vertebral body (List separately in addition to code for primary procedure) (new code 1/1/15)

 

22523

Percutaneous vertebral augmentation, including cavity creation (fracture reduction and bone biopsy included when performed) using mechanical device, one vertebral body, unilateral or bilateral cannulation (e.g., kyphoplasty); thoracic (code deleted 12/31/14)

 

22524

lumbar (code deleted 12/31/14)

 

22525

each additional thoracic or lumbar vertebral body (list separately in addition to code for primary procedure) (code deleted 12/31/14)

 

72291-72292

Radiological supervision and interpretation, percutaneous vertebroplasty or vertebral augmentation including cavity creation, per vertebral body; under fluoroscopic or CT guidance, respectively (codes deleted 12/31/14)

ICD-9 Diagnosis 

1702

Malignant neoplasm of vertebral column

 

198.5

Secondary malignant neoplasm of bone and bone marrow

 

203.00-203.01

Multiple myeloma

 

238.6

Neoplasm of uncertain behavior of plasma cells

 

733.13

Pathologic fracture of the vertebrae

ICD-9 Procedure

81.66

Percutaneous vertebral augmentation

HCPCS

 

 

ICD-10-CM (effective 10/01/15)

C41.2

Malignant neoplasm of vertebral column

 

C79.51-C75.52

Secondary malignant neoplasm of bone and bone marrow; code range

 

C90.00-C90.02

Multiple myeloma; code range

 

D18.09

Hemangioma of other sites

 

D47Z9

Other specified neoplasms of uncertain behavior of lymphoid, hematopoietic and related issues

 

M48.50-M48.58

Collapsed vertebra, not elsewhere classified; code range

 

M80.08

Age related osteoporosis with current pathological fracture, vertebra(e)

 

M84.48

Pathological fracture, other site

 

M84.58

Pathological fracture in neoplastic disease, vertebrae

 

M84.68

Pathological fracture in other disease, other site

ICD-10-PCS (effective 10/01/15)

 

ICD-10-PCS codes are only used for inpatient services. There is no specific ICD-10-PCS code for this procedure.

 

0PU33JZ, 0PU34JZ

Supplement cervical vertebra with synthetic substitute; code by approach

 

0PU43JZ, 0PU44JZ

Supplement thoracic vertebra with synthetic substitute, code by approach

 

0QU03JZ, 0QU04JZ

Supplement lumbar vertebra with synthetic substitute, code by approach

 

0QU13JZ, 0QU14JZ

Supplement sacrum with synthetic substitute, code by approach

Type of Service

Radiology

 

Place of Service

Inpatient/Outpatient

 

Procedure and diagnosis codes on Medical Policy documents are included only as a general reference tool for each policy. They may not be all-inclusive. 

This medical policy was developed through consideration of peer-reviewed medical literature generally recognized by the relevant medical community, U.S. FDA approval status, nationally accepted standards of medical practice and accepted standards of medical practice in this community, Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association technology assessment program (TEC) and other non-affiliated technology evaluation centers, reference to federal regulations, other plan medical policies and accredited national guidelines.

"Current Procedural Terminology© American Medical Association.  All Rights Reserved" 

History From 2014 Forward     

05/01/2019 

Annual review, no change to policy intent. Updating guidelines to remove outdated coding. 

10/16/2018 

Correcting history verbiage for 5/17/2018.  Annual Review updating background, description, regulatory status, rationale and references . Does not alter intent of policy 

05/17/2018 

Annual review, policy verbiage updated to align with the evidence summary. Does not alter intent of policy. Removing Kiva from policy verbiage. Does not alter intent of policy. Also updating background, description, regulatory status, rationale and references 

05/16/2017 

Annual review. Updating rationale, and references. adding regulatory status.

05/03/2017 

Annual review, no change to policy intent. 

05/03/2016 

Annual review, no change to policy intent. 

05/18/2015 

Annual review, no change to policy intent. Updating description, background, regulatory status, rationale and references. adding guidelines and coding. 

05/05/2014

Annual review. Added vertebral body stenting as investigational. Updated background, regulatory status, rationale & references. Added related policies.


Go Back