Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery Procedures (for Tennessee Only)

Coverage Summary

This Tennessee Medicaid & CoverKids policy (effective 2025-01-01, status: CURRENT) covers a set of minimally invasive spine surgery procedures and takes a mixed coverage stance: several procedures are explicitly identified as unproven and not medically necessary, while other minimally invasive approaches are described, defined, and reviewed. Headline findings from the evidence review indicate the overall quality of evidence is low-to-very-low, with multiple systematic reviews and primary studies available but a lack of high-quality randomized controlled trials; where comparative trials exist the results are heterogeneous and several techniques show higher reoperation rates or uncertain long-term benefit compared with standard open procedures.

Policy Metadata

Policy NumberCS364TN.C

Effective Date2025-01-01

StatusCURRENT

ScopeTennessee-only UnitedHealthcare Medical Policy for Medicaid and CoverKids addressing minimally invasive spine surgery procedures, defining unproven/not medically necessary procedures, providing definitions, codes, and evidence summaries

Not Medically Necessary / Unproven Procedures

The following spinal procedures are unproven and not medically necessary due to insufficient evidence of efficacy:

ALL of the following

Percutaneous Image-Guided Lumbar Decompression (PILD) is unproven and not medically necessary
Automated Percutaneous Lumbar Discectomy (APLD) for intervertebral disc decompression is unproven and not medically necessary
Percutaneous Sacroplasty: Percutaneous sacral augmentation (Sacroplasty) with or without a balloon or bone cement is unproven and not medically necessary
Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy (PELD) for intervertebral disc decompression is unproven and not medically necessary

Coverage Rationale (Policy History Summary)

Coverage Rationale (summary from Policy History)

Policy was updated to add clarifying language that APLD and PELD are unproven and not medically necessary for intervertebral disc decompression.

ALL of the following

APLD for intervertebral disc decompression: Automated Percutaneous Lumbar Discectomy (APLD) is considered unproven and not medically necessary for intervertebral disc decompression.
PELD for intervertebral disc decompression: Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy (PELD) is considered unproven and not medically necessary for intervertebral disc decompression.

05/01/2025added

Applicable Procedure Codes (reference)

Procedure codes referenced (informational only)CPT|HCPCS

0200T	Percutaneous sacral augmentation (sacroplasty), unilateral injection(s), including the use of a balloon or mechanical device, when used, 1 or more needles, includes imaging guidance and bone biopsy, when performed.
0201T	Percutaneous sacral augmentation (sacroplasty), bilateral injections, including the use of a balloon or mechanical device, when used, 2 or more needles, includes imaging guidance and bone biopsy, when performed.
0275T	Percutaneous laminotomy/laminectomy (interlaminar approach) for decompression of neural elements, any method, under indirect image guidance, single or multiple levels, unilateral or bilateral; lumbar.
22586	Arthrodesis, pre-sacral interbody technique, including disc space preparation, discectomy; with posterior instrumentation, with image guidance, includes bone graft when performed, L5-S1 interspace.
22630	Arthrodesis, posterior interbody technique, including laminectomy and/or discectomy to prepare interspace (other than for decompression), single interspace; lumbar.
22899	Unlisted procedure, spine.
62287	Decompression procedure, percutaneous, of nucleus pulposus of intervertebral disc, any method utilizing needle based technique to remove disc material under fluoroscopic imaging or other form of indirect visualization, with discography and/or epidural injection(s) at the treated level(s), when performed, single or multiple levels, lumbar.
62380	Endoscopic decompression of spinal cord, nerve root(s), including laminotomy, partial facetectomy, foraminotomy, discectomy and/or excision of herniated intervertebral disc, 1 interspace, lumbar.
G0276	Blinded procedure for lumbar stenosis, percutaneous image-guided lumbar decompression (PILD) or placebo-control, performed in an approved coverage with evidence development (CED) clinical trial.

Removed CPTCPT

0274T

CPT code removed from Applicable Codes (no longer listed in policy)

Provider Actions & Administrative Notes

Prior Authorization

Policy applies to coverage determinations

When deciding coverage, reference federal, state, or contractual benefit plan requirements which govern in event of conflict; UnitedHealthcare may use third-party tools (e.g., InterQual) to assist in administering benefits.

InterQual

Documentation Required

Benefit determination governed by federal/state/contractual rules

Listing of a code in this policy is for reference only and does not by itself imply that the service is covered or reimbursable; benefit coverage is determined by federal, state, or contractual requirements and applicable laws.

Background and Evidence Summary

Background: The policy defines and describes a range of minimally invasive spinal procedures (for example, Automated Percutaneous Lumbar Discectomy (APLD) and Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy (PELD)) and explains the intended mechanisms and approaches (e.g., percutaneous probes, endoscopic visualization, presacral access, fluoroscopic guidance).

Evidence quality statement: The clinical evidence base is characterized by numerous observational studies, case series, and several systematic reviews/meta-analyses but with insufficient high-quality randomized controlled trial evidence for many techniques. Reviews and guideline assessments cited in the policy note limited, inconsistent, and heterogeneous results and emphasize the need for larger, well-designed RCTs with longer follow-up to determine comparative safety and durability.

Topic	Summary
APLD evidence summary
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses show insufficient high-quality RCT evidence; APLD may have lower success and higher complication/reoperation rates versus other techniques; guidelines do not recommend APLD.
AxiaLIF evidence summary
Case series and retrospective studies exist; no RCTs found; evidence insufficient to demonstrate improved net health outcome versus standard fusion; safety concerns noted and NICE recommends special arrangements.
MILD evidence summary
RCTs, observational studies, and HTAs show short-term improvements (up to 1-2 years) but evidence gaps remain for long-term effectiveness and comparative benefit versus open decompression.
ISASS position
Interlaminar spacer + decompression may provide stabilization for patients without greater than grade instability; did not address devices without decompression.
NASS 2014
Insufficient evidence to recommend for or against interspinous process spacing devices for lumbar spinal stenosis.
PILD / PLDD evidence
RCTs and cohort studies show insufficient evidence of efficacy versus placebo or open decompression; higher reoperation rates reported (e.g., Brouwer et al. reoperation 38% vs 16%).
PLDD observational outcomes
Klessinger (2018c): short-term success 67.1%; subsequent open surgery 26.0%; most reoperations in first year.
PLDD long-term cohort
McCormick et al. (2016): at 8 years, NRS reduction >50% in 29%, ODI improvement >30% in 26%; 36% underwent surgery.
Nucleoplasty systematic review
Limited evidence suggests possible pain relief; lack of RCTs limits conclusions.
Nucleoplasty reoperation rates
Klessinger studies: cervical PCN reoperation 19.5%; PDN reoperation ~18.7%–19.5%; early reoperations common.
PELD evidence
Meta-analyses and HTAs: PELD generally similar to open/minimally invasive alternatives for pain and function; some reports of higher recurrence rates and overall low-quality evidence and heterogeneity.
PELD HTA
Hayes: low-quality evidence suggests PELD performs similarly to alternatives; substantial uncertainty remains.
PETD / PEID comparisons
Multiple RCTs/observational studies/meta-analyses show similar efficacy; differences in operative time, fluoroscopy, and complications vary by approach; evidence low to moderate quality.
TESSYS / Transforaminal systems
ECRI (2019): low-quality, mixed evidence; appears safe with similar adverse event rates; efficacy conclusions limited.
Sacroplasty evidence
Hayes (2018, updated 2021): overall poor-quality evidence; minimal or unclear support for sacroplasty for sacral insufficiency fractures; controlled studies needed.
Percutaneous endoscopic fusion
Evidence limited to small case series; no strong conclusions on safety or efficacy; RCTs lacking.

Evidence Highlights

Overall Evidence Qualitylow-to-very-low

Reoperation Rates Notedhigher (e.g., PLDD/nucleoplasty reoperation rates reported up to 38% vs 16% in RCT; observational reoperation rates 18–26%)

Definitions

Term	Definition
Automated Percutaneous Lumbar Discectomy (APLD)
Minimally invasive technique using a thin blunt-tipped suction and cutting probe inserted percutaneously into the herniated disc under fluoroscopic guidance to remove degenerated disc nucleus. Considered unproven and not medically necessary for intervertebral disc decompression per policy update.
Axial Lumbar Interbody Fusion (AxiaLIF)
Minimally invasive presacral/trans-sacral approach to L5-S1 fusion entering through a small incision near the tailbone to remove disc and place bone graft and implants.
Endoscope
Thin fiberoptic tube with light and lens used to examine internal body structures and provide minimally invasive access for diagnostic/surgical procedures.
Percutaneous Image-Guided Lumbar Decompression (PILD)
Posterior decompression of the lumbar spine performed under indirect image guidance without direct visualization of the surgical area.
Sacroplasty
Minimally invasive injection of bone cement into sacral insufficiency fractures, often via thin hollow tubes placed under imaging guidance.
PLDD / PILD
Percutaneous (image-guided) lumbar decompression/discectomy performed under fluoroscopic guidance.
Nucleoplasty / PDN / PCN
Percutaneous disc decompression using coblation or similar methods (e.g., Dekompressor, Perc-DLG Spine Wand).
PELD / PETD / PEID / PTED
Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy / transforaminal or interlaminar endoscopic approaches for lumbar disc herniation.
TESSYS
Transforaminal Endoscopic Spine System for percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy.
Interbody Fusion
Surgical procedure that fuses two adjacent vertebral bodies; definition was updated in policy (text not provided in this excerpt).
APLD (policy note)
Automated Percutaneous Lumbar Discectomy — considered unproven and not medically necessary for intervertebral disc decompression per policy update.
PELD (policy note)
Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy — considered unproven and not medically necessary for intervertebral disc decompression per policy update.

Revision History

05/01/2025addedLatest

Added clarifying language that Automated Percutaneous Lumbar Discectomy (APLD) and Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy (PELD) are unproven and not medically necessary for intervertebral disc decompression.

revised

Updated definition of 'Interbody Fusion' in the policy definitions.

removed

Removed CPT code 0274T from the Applicable Codes list.