|MP 7.01.58||Intraoperative Neurophsyiologic Monitoring (sensory-evoked potentials, motor-evoked potentials, EEG monitoring)|
|Original Policy Date
|Last Review Status/Date
Reviewed with literature search/12:2012
|Return to Medical Policy Index|
Our medical policies are designed for informational purposes only and are not an authorization, or an explanation of benefits, or a contract. Receipt of benefits is subject to satisfaction of all terms and conditions of the coverage. Medical technology is constantly changing, and we reserve the right to review and update our policies periodically.
Intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring (IONM) describes a variety of procedures that have been used to monitor the integrity of neural pathways during high-risk neurosurgical, orthopedic, and vascular surgeries. It involves the detection of electrical signals produced by the nervous system in response to sensory or electrical stimuli to provide information about the functional integrity of neuronal structures.
The principal goal of intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring (IONM) is the identification of nervous system impairment in the hope that prompt intervention will prevent permanent deficits. Correctable factors at surgery include circulatory disturbance, excess compression from retraction, bony structures, or hematomas, or mechanical stretching. The technology is continuously evolving with refinements in equipment and analytic techniques, including recording, with several patients monitored under the supervision of a physician who is outside the operating room.
The different methodologies of monitoring are described below:
Sensory-evoked potential describes the responses of the sensory pathways to sensory or electrical stimuli. Intraoperative monitoring of sensory-evoked potentials is used to assess the functional integrity of central nervous system (CNS) pathways during operations that put the spinal cord or brain at risk for significant ischemia or traumatic injury. The basic principles of sensory-evoked potential monitoring involve identification of a neurological region at risk, selection and stimulation of a nerve that carries a signal through the at-risk region, and recording and interpretation of the signal at certain standardized points along the pathway. Monitoring of sensory-evoked potentials is commonly used during the following procedures: carotid endarterectomy, brain surgery involving vasculature, surgery with distraction compression or ischemia of the spinal cord and brainstem, and acoustic neuroma surgery. Sensory-evoked potentials can be further broken down into the following categories according to the type of simulation used:
- Somatosensory-evoked potentials (SSEPs) are cortical responses elicited by peripheral nerve stimulations. Peripheral nerves, such as the median, ulnar, or tibial nerves, are typically stimulated, but in some situations the spinal cord may be stimulated directly. Recording is done either cortically or at the level of the spinal cord above the surgical procedure. Intraoperative monitoring of SSEPs is most commonly used during orthopedic or neurologic surgery to prompt intervention to reduce surgically induced morbidity and/or to monitor the level of anesthesia. One of the most common indications for SSEP monitoring is in patients undergoing corrective surgery for scoliosis. In this setting, SSEP monitors the status of the posterior column pathways and thus does not reflect ischemia in the anterior (motor) pathways. Several different techniques are commonly used, including stimulation of a relevant peripheral nerve with monitoring from the scalp, from interspinous ligament needle electrodes, or from catheter electrodes in the epidural space.
- Brainstem auditory-evoked potentials (BAEPs) are generated in response to auditory clicks and can define the functional status of the auditory nerve. Surgical resection of a cerebellopontine angle tumor, such as an acoustic neuroma, places the auditory nerves at risk, and BAEPs have been extensively used to monitor auditory function during these procedures.
- Visual-evoked potentials (VEPs) with light flashes are used to track visual signals from the retina to the occipital cortex. VEP monitoring has been used for surgery on lesions near the optic chiasm. However, VEPs are very difficult to interpret due to their sensitivity to anesthesia, temperature, and blood pressure.
Motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) are recorded from muscles following direct or transcranial electrical stimulation of motor cortex or by pulsed magnetic stimulation provided by a coil placed over the head. Peripheral motor responses (muscle activity) are recorded by electrodes placed on the skin at prescribed points along the motor pathways. Motor evoked potentials, especially when induced by magnetic stimulation, can be affected by anesthesia. The Digitimer electrical cortical stimulator received U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) premarket approval in 2002. Devices for transcranial magnetic stimulation have not yet received approval from the FDA for this use.
Multimodal IONM, in which more than one technique is used, most commonly with SSEPs and MEPs, has also been described.
EMG (Electromyogram) Monitoring and Nerve Conduction Velocity Measurements
Electromyogram monitoring and nerve conduction velocity measurements can be performed in the operating room and may be used to assess the status of the peripheral nerves, e.g., to identify the extent of nerve damage prior to nerve grafting or during resection of tumors. In addition, these techniques may be used during procedures around the nerve roots and around peripheral nerves to assess the presence of excessive traction or other impairment. Surgery in the region of cranial nerves can be monitored by electrically stimulating the proximal (brain) end of the nerve and recording via EMG in the facial or neck muscles. Thus monitoring is done in the direction opposite that of sensory-evoked potentials, but the purpose is similar—to verify that the neural pathway is intact.
EEG (Electroencephalogram) Monitoring
Spontaneous EEG monitoring can also be recorded during surgery and can be subdivided as follows:
- EEG monitoring has been widely used to monitor cerebral ischemia secondary to carotid cross-clamping during a carotid endarterectomy. EEG monitoring may identify those patients who would benefit from the use of a vascular shunt during the procedure to restore adequate cerebral perfusion. Conversely, shunts, which have an associated risk of iatrogenic complications, may be avoided in those patients in whom the EEG is normal. Carotid endarterectomy may be done with the patient under local anesthesia so that monitoring of cortical function can be directly assessed.
- Electrocorticography (ECoG) is the recording of the EEG directly from a surgically exposed cerebral cortex. CoG is typically used to define the sensory cortex and map the critical limits of a surgical resection. ECoG recordings have been most frequently used to identify epileptogenic regions for resection. In these applications, ECoG does not constitute monitoring, per se.
Intraoperative monitoring, which includes somatosensory-evoked potentials, motor-evoked potentials using transcranial electrical stimulation, brainstem auditory-evoked potentials, EMG of cranial nerves, EEG, and electrocorticography (ECoG), may be considered medically necessary during spinal, intracranial, or vascular procedures.
Intraoperative monitoring of visual-evoked potentials is considered investigational.
Due to the lack of FDA approval, intraoperative monitoring of motor-evoked potentials using transcranial magnetic stimulation is considered investigational.
Intraoperative EMG and nerve conduction velocity monitoring during surgery on the peripheral nerves is considered not medically necessary.
Note: These policy statements refer only to use of these techniques as part of intraoperative monitoring. Other clinical applications of these techniques, such as visual-evoked potentials and EMG, are not considered in this policy.
Constant communication between surgeon, neurophysiologist, and anesthetist are required for safe and effective intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring.
Effective in 2013, there is new CPT coding for this service:
95940: Continuous intraoperative neurophysiology monitoring in the operating room, one on one monitoring requiring personal attendance, each 15 minutes (List separately in addition to code for primary procedure)
95941: Continuous intraoperative neurophysiology monitoring, from outside the operating room (remote or nearby) or for monitoring of more than one case while in the operating room, per hour (List separately in addition to code for primary procedure)
In 2013, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) also established a new HCPCS code for this type of monitoring:
G0453: Continuous intraoperative neurophysiology monitoring, from outside the operating room (remote or nearby), per patient, (attention directed exclusively to one patient) each 15 minutes (list in addition to primary procedure)
BlueCard/National Account Issues
Intraoperative monitoring is considered reimbursable as a separate service only when a licensed healthcare practitioner, other than the operating surgeon, interprets the monitoring. The monitoring is performed by a healthcare practitioner or technician who is in attendance in the operating room throughout the procedure.
Implementation of a local policy on this technology may also involve discussions about credentialing of those providing the intraoperative monitoring services, as well as on-site versus remote real-time review and interpretation.
Coding for intraoperative monitoring uses time-based codes; they are not based on the number (single vs. multiple) of modalities used.
Literature searches of the MEDLINE database through March 2004 revealed that intraoperative monitoring is a widely accepted practice without a strong evidence-based support through controlled trials. In 2004, the Medical Policy Panel concluded that intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring (IONM) has evolved into primarily a credentialing and reimbursement issue and determined that this policy would no longer be reviewed. In 2011, the policy was returned to active review, focusing on intraoperative-evoked potentials that had been considered investigational. The most recent literature update was performed through October 2012. Following is a summary of the key literature to date.
Intraoperative monitoring of neurologic function is a widely diffused practice, particularly during cervical and thoracic spinal surgery. There have been several references that have looked at the efficacy of this technology and the controversies surrounding its use. (1-4)
In 2010, Fehlings et al. published a systematic review of the evidence for improved outcomes from IONM for patients undergoing instrumented spine surgery. (5) The authors identified 32 articles that met their inclusion criteria. The overall strength of the evidence for unimodal somatosensory-evoked potentials (SSEPs) and motor-evoked potentials (MEPs) studies was very low. The review found a high level of evidence that multimodal IONM is sensitive and specific for detecting neurologic injury during spine surgery, with most studies reporting sensitivity and specificity above 90%. There was a low level of evidence that IONM reduces the rate of new or worsened perioperative neurologic deficits, based on 4 observational studies that compared patients with and without neuromonitoring. There was very low evidence that an intraoperative response to a neuromonitoring alert reduces the rate of perioperative neurologic deterioration, with only 1 comparative study identified.
In 2012, the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) and the American Clinical Neurophysiology Society examined the evidence on whether intraoperative SSEPs and MEPs predict adverse surgical outcomes. (6) Outcomes of patients with evoked potential (EP) changes were compared with those of patients without EP changes. In order to reduce bias, the only outcomes assessed were new paraparesis, paraplegia, and quadriplegia. Twelve studies met inclusion criteria and were reviewed. Results of the 4 Class I diagnostic studies showed that 16-40% of patients who had an EP change during IONM had paraparesis, paraplegia, or quadriplegia. There were no adverse events in patients without an EP change. The evidence review did not identify any studies that evaluated these outcomes in patients with IONM compared to patients without IONM. The review did identify one prospective study that found a significant positive relationship between the decision to monitor and better motor outcome.
Authors of a study from a U.S. center reviewed records of 1,121 patients with scoliosis treated at 4 pediatric spine centers between 2000 and 2004 and monitored with a multimodality technique. (7) Thirty-eight had recordings that met criteria for signal change. Of these, 17 showed suppression of the amplitude of transcranial electrical MEPs in excess of 65% without evidence of changes in SSEPs. In 9 of the 38 patients, the signal change was related to hypotension and was corrected with augmentation of the blood pressure. In the remaining 29 patients, the alert was related directly to a surgical maneuver (segmental vessel clamping and posterior instrumentation and correction). Nine of the 26 patients with an instrumentation-related alert woke with a transient motor and/or sensory deficit. Seven of these 9 patients presented solely with a motor deficit, which was detected by monitoring of MEPs in all cases. Two patients had only sensory symptoms. Sensory-evoked potentials (SEPs) failed to identify a motor deficit in 4 of the 7 patients and, when changes in SEPs occurred, they lagged behind changes in transcranial electric MEPs by an average of approximately 5 minutes.
Visual-evoked Potentials (VEPs)
Several articles from Asia describe potentially useful methods of utilizing intraoperative VEPs to assess the integrity of visual pathway structures, including optic nerves, in order to detect visual impairment before it is irreversible. (8, 9) More research is required to identify the role and utility of intraoperative VEPs.
Intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring (IONM) describes a variety of procedures that have been used to monitor the integrity of neural pathways during high-risk neurosurgical, orthopedic, and vascular surgeries. At the present time, it appears that monitoring of somatosensory-evoked potentials (SSEPs) and motor-evoked potentials (MEPs), particularly for spine surgery and open abdominal aorta aneurysm repairs, has broad acceptance though the evidence base consists mainly of observational studies. Therefore, intraoperative monitoring, which includes somatosensory-evoked potentials, motor-evoked potentials using transcranial electrical stimulation, brainstem auditory-evoked potentials, electromyogram (EMG) of cranial nerves, electroencephalogram (EEG), and electrocorticography (ECoG), may be considered medically necessary during spinal, intracranial, or vascular procedures. More research is required to identify the role and utility of intraoperative visual-evoked potentials (VEPs); this is considered investigational. Due to the lack of U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, intraoperative monitoring of motor-evoked potentials using transcranial magnetic stimulation is considered investigational. Intraoperative EMG and nerve conduction velocity monitoring during surgery on the peripheral nerves is considered not medically necessary.
It should be noted that there is ongoing controversy about the utility of IONM in some surgical procedures. Most of the literature is from Europe and the United Kingdom, and, while many papers report the sensitivity and specificity of MEPs for predicting post-surgical neurological deficits, few papers report intraoperative interventions undertaken in response to information from monitoring. In a review, Malhotra and Shaffrey note that although MEP monitoring is considered to be safe, relative contraindications include epilepsy, cortical lesion, skull defect, proconvulsant medication, cardiac pacing, and implantable device. (10)
Practice Guidelines and Position Statements
The American Electroencephalographic Society (now the American Clinical Neurophysiology Society) published guidelines in 1984 and 1994 on the intraoperative monitoring of SEPs. (11, 12) Included were standards for IOMN of auditory-evoked potentials, facial nerve responses, and SSEPs. At the time of the 1994 guidelines, it was considered too early to develop guidelines on monitoring of motor function by stimulation of the spinal cord or motor cortex.
In 2009 the American Clinical Neurophysiology Society published recommended standards for intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring. (13) Guideline 11A includes the following statement.
The monitoring team should be under the direct supervision of a physician with training and experience in NIOM. The monitoring physician should be licensed in the state and privileged to interpret neurophysiologic testing in the hospital in which the surgery is being performed. He/she is responsible for real-time interpretation of NIOM data. The monitoring physician should be present in the operating room or have access to NIOM data in real-time from a remote location and be in communication with the staff in the operating room. There are many methods of remote monitoring however any method used must conform to local and national protected health information guidelines. The monitoring physician must be available to be in the operating room, and the specifics of this availability (i.e., types of surgeries) should be decided by the hospital credentialing committee. In order to devote the needed attention, it is recommended that the monitoring physician interpret no more than three cases concurrently.
The American Academy of Neurology (AAN) published an assessment of IONM in 1990 with an evidence-based guideline update in 2012 by the AAN and the American Clinical Neurophysiology Society. (6, 14) The 1990 assessment indicates that monitoring requires a team approach with a well-trained physician-neurophysiologist to provide or supervise monitoring. EEG monitoring is used during carotid endarterectomy or for other similar situations in which cerebral blood flow is at high risk. Electrocorticography from surgically exposed cortex can help to define the optimal limits of a surgical resection or identify regions of greatest impairment, while sensory cortex SSEPs can help to localize the central fissure and motor cortex. Auditory-evoked potentials, along with cranial nerve monitoring can be used during posterior fossa neurosurgical procedures. Spinal cord SSEPs are frequently used to monitor the spinal cord during orthopedic or neurosurgical procedures around the spinal cord, or cross-clamping of the thoracic aorta. EMG monitoring during procedures around the roots and peripheral nerves can be used to warn of excessive traction or other impairment of motor nerves. At the time of the 1990 assessment, MEPs were considered investigational by many neurophysiologists. The 2012 update, which was endorsed by the American Association of Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine, concluded that the available evidence supports IONM using SSEPs or MEPs when conducted under the supervision of a clinical neurophysiologist experienced with IONM. Evidence was insufficient to evaluate IOMN when conducted by technicians alone or by an automated device.
The American Society of Neurophysiological Monitoring provides position statements on intraoperative monitory with auditory evoked potentials, electromyography, somatosensory evoked potentials, and electroencephalography. (15)
In 1999, the International Organisation of Societies for Electrophysiological Technology (OSET) published guidelines for performing EEG and evoked potential monitoring during surgery. (16) Included in the guidelines are recommended standards for surgical monitoring personnel, technique and standards of safety, along with standards for monitoring SSEPs, auditory-evoked potentials, and EEG. The guidelines indicate that neuromonitoring may be useful during surgery that may affect spinal cord function (deformity correction, traumatic spinal fracture repair, tethered cord release, spinal cord mass removal), brainstem function (posterior fossa mass removal), brain function (carotid endarterectomy, aneurysm repair), and peripheral nerve function (pelvic fracture surgery). Brainstem auditory-evoked potentials can be utilized during neurosurgical procedures that involve the pons and the lower midbrain, and EEG monitoring can be useful for monitoring the brain when surgical procedures may potentially compromise blood perfusion to the brain or involve the cerebral cortex. EEG monitoring is described for carotid endarterectomy, intracranial aneurysm surgery, cardiac bypass surgery, electrocorticography, and the Wada test.
In 1993, the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology (IFCN) published a report on neuromonitoring during surgery. (17) The stated goals of neuromonitoring are the identification of new neurologic impairment early enough to allow prompt correction of the cause, prompt identification of new systemic impairment, to help a surgeon to identify uncertain or unrecognized tissue, identify the location of a lesion, provide reassurance to the surgeon during the course of an operation, and for high-risk patients. The report describes standard procedures for electrocorticography, EEG, auditory- and somatosensory-evoked potentials (SSEPs), and MEPs.
Medicare National Coverage
Electroencephalographic (EEG) monitoring “may be covered routinely in carotid endarterectomies and in other neurological procedures where cerebral perfusion could be reduced. Such other procedures might include aneurysm surgery where hypotensive anesthesia is used or other cerebral vascular procedures where cerebral blood flow may be interrupted”. (18) Coverage determinations for other modalities were not identified.
- Aminoff MJ. Intraoperative monitoring by evoked potentials for spinal cord surgery: the cons. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1989; 73(5):378-80.
- Daube JR. Intraoperative monitoring by evoked potentials for spinal cord surgery: the pros. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1989; 73(5):374-7.
- Fisher RS, Raudzens P, Nunemacher M. Efficacy of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring. J Clin Neurophysiol 1995; 12(1):97-109.
- Schweiger H, Kamp HD, Dinkel M. Somatosensory-evoked potentials during carotid artery surgery: experience in 400 operations. Surgery 1991; 109(5):602-9.
- Fehlings MG, Brodke DS, Norvell DC et al. The evidence for intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in spine surgery: does it make a difference? Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010; 35(9 Suppl):S37-46.
- Nuwer MR, Emerson RG, Galloway G et al. Evidence-based guideline update: intraoperative spinal monitoring with somatosensory and transcranial electrical motor evoked potentials: report of the Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Clinical Neurophysiology Society. Neurology 2012; 78(8):585-9.
- Schwartz DM, Auerbach JD, Dormans JP et al. Neurophysiological detection of impending spinal cord injury during scoliosis surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89(11):2440-9.
- Ota T, Kawai K, Kamada K et al. Intraoperative monitoring of cortically recorded visual response for posterior visual pathway. J Neurosurg 2010; 112(2):285-94.
- Sasaki T, Itakura T, Suzuki K et al. Intraoperative monitoring of visual evoked potential: introduction of a clinically useful method. J Neurosurg 2010; 112(2):273-84.
- Malhotra NR, Shaffrey CI. Intraoperative electrophysiological monitoring in spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2010; 35(25):2167-79.
- American Electroencephalographic Society. Guidelines for clinical evoked potential studies. J Clin Neurophysiol 1984; 1(1):3-53.
- American Electroencephalographic Society. Guideline eleven: guidelines for intraoperative monitoring of sensory evoked potentials. J Clin Neurophysiol 1994; 11(1):77-87.
- American Clinical Neurophysiology Society. Guideline 11A. Recommended Standards for Neurophysiologic Intraoperative Monitoring – Principles. Available online at: http://www.acns.org/pdfs/11A%20-%20Recommended%20Standards%20for%20NIOM%20-%20Principles.pdf. Last accessed November, 2012.
- American Academy of Neurology. Assessment: intraoperative neurophysiology. Report of the Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology 1990; 40(11):1644-6.
- American Society of Neurophysiologic Monitoring. Position Statements. Available online at: http://www.asnm.org/news/position-statements.html. Last accessed November, 2012.
- International Organization of Societies for Electrophysiological Technology (OSET). Guidelines for Performing EEG and Evoked Potential Monitoring During Surgery. Am J END Technol 1999; 39:257-77.
- Nuwer MR, Daube J, Fischer C et al. Neuromonitoring during surgery. Report of an IFCN Committee. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 1993; 87(5):263-76.
- Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. National Coverage Determination (NCD) for Electroencephalographic monitoring During Surgical Procedures Involving the Cerebral Vasculature (160.8). Available online at: http://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/details/ncd-details.aspx?NCDId=77&ncdver=2&CoverageSelection=National&KeyWord=monitoring&KeyWordLookUp=Title&KeyWordLookUp=Title&KeyWordLookUp=Title&KeyWordSearchType=And&KeyWordSearchType=And&KeyWordSearchType=And&bc=gAAAACAAAAAA&. Last accessed November, 2012.
Auditory evoked potentials for evoked response audiometry and/or testing of the central nervous system; comprehensive
Electrocardiogram at surgery (separate procedure)
|95867–95868||Needle electromyography of cranial nerve supplied muscle(s) code range|
|95900–95904||Nerve conduction study code range|
|95920||Intra-operative neurophysiology testing, per hour (List separately in addition to code for primary procedure)|
|95925–95927||Somatosensory-evoked potentials code range|
|95930||Visual evoked potential (VEP) testing central nervous system, checkerboard or flash|
|95940||Continuous intraoperative neurophysiology monitoring in the operating room, one on one monitoring requiring personal attendance, each 15 minutes (List separately in addition to code for primary procedure) (new code 1/1/13)|
|95941||Continuous intraoperative neurophysiology monitoring, from outside the operating room (remote or nearby) or for monitoring of more than one case while in the operating room, per hour (List separately in addition to code for primary procedure) (new code 1/1/13)|
|95955||Electroencephalogram (EEG) during non-intracranial surgery (e.g., carotid surgery)|
|ICD-9 Procedure||38.12||Carotid endarterectomy|
|89.15||Other non-operative neurologic function tests (includes SEP, VEP, BAEP, motor- evoked potentials, and nerve conduction study)|
|ICD-9 Diagnosis||191.6||Malignant neoplasm of brain, occipital lobe|
|198.3||Secondary malignant neoplasm of brain and spinal cord|
|225.0||Benign neoplasm of brain|
|225.1||Benign neoplasm of cranial nerves (includes acoustic neuroma)|
|237.5||Neoplasm of uncertain behavior, brain and spinal cord|
|239.6||Neoplasm of unspecified behavior, brain|
|441||Aortic aneurysm and dissection|
|722.0||Intervertebral disc disorders|
|723.0-723.3||Other disorders of cervical region code range|
|724.09||Other and unspecified disorders of back|
|737.0-737.39||Curvature of spine (i.e., scoliosis) code range|
|433.1||Occlusion and stenosis of carotid artery|
|HCPCS||G0453||Continuous intraoperative neurophysiology monitoring, from outside the operating room (remote or nearby), per patient, (attention directed exclusively to one patient) each 15 minutes (list in addition to primary procedure) (new code 1/1/13)|
|ICD-10-CM (effective 10/1/14)||C71.0 – C71.9||Malignant neoplasm of brain; code range|
|C79.31 – C79.32||Secondary malignant neoplasm of brain and cerebral meninges; code range|
|D33.0 – D33.9||Benign neoplasm of brain and other parts of central nervous system; code range|
|D43.0 – D43.9||Neoplasm of uncertain behavior of brain and central nervous system; code range|
|D49.6||Neoplasm of unspecified behavior of brain|
|I71.00 – I71.9||Aortic aneurysm and dissection; code range|
|M48.00 – M48.08||Spinal stenosis; code range|
|M40.00 – M40.57||Kyphosis and lordosis; code range|
|M41.00 – M41.9||Scoliosis; code range|
|I65.01 – I65.9||Occlusion and stenosis of precerebral arteries, not resulting in cerebral infarction; code range|
|ICD-10-PCS (effective 10/1/14)||4A0002Z||Measurement of Central Nervous Conductivity, Open Approach|
|4A0004Z||Measurement of Central Nervous Electrical Activity, Open Approach|
|4A000BZ||Measurement of Central Nervous Pressure, Open Approach|
|4A00X2Z||Measurement of Central Nervous Conductivity, External Approach|
|4A00X4Z||Measurement of Central Nervous Electrical Activity, External Approach|
|4A01029||Measurement of Peripheral Nervous Conductivity, Sensory, Open Approach|
|4A0102B||Measurement of Peripheral Nervous Conductivity, Motor, Open Approach|
|4A01329||Measurement of Peripheral Nervous Conductivity, Sensory, Percutaneous Approach|
|4A0132B||Measurement of Peripheral Nervous Conductivity, Motor, Percutaneous Approach|
|4A01X29||Measurement of Peripheral Nervous Conductivity, Sensory, External Approach|
|4A01X2B||Measurement of Peripheral Nervous Conductivity, Motor, External Approach|
|4A1002Z||Monitoring of Central Nervous Conductivity, Open Approach|
|4A1004Z||Monitoring of Central Nervous Electrical Activity, Open Approach|
|4A100BZ||Monitoring of Central Nervous Pressure, Open Approach|
|4A10X2Z||Monitoring of Central Nervous Conductivity, External Approach|
|4A10X4Z||Monitoring of Central Nervous Electrical Activity, External Approach|
|4A11029||Monitoring of Peripheral Nervous Conductivity, Sensory, Open Approach|
|4A1102B||Monitoring of Peripheral Nervous Conductivity, Motor, Open Approach|
|4A11329||Monitoring of Peripheral Nervous Conductivity, Sensory, Percutaneous Approach|
|4A1132B||Monitoring of Peripheral Nervous Conductivity, Motor, Percutaneous Approach|
|4A11X29||Monitoring of Peripheral Nervous Conductivity, Sensory, External Approach|
|4A11X2B||Monitoring of Peripheral Nervous Conductivity, Motor, External Approach|
|4B00XVZ||Measurement of Central Nervous Stimulator, External Approach|
|4B01XVZ||Measurement of Peripheral Nervous Stimulator, External Approach|
|4B0FXVZ||Measurement of Musculoskeletal Stimulator, External Approach|
|F01Z77Z||Facial Nerve Function Assessment using Electrophysiologic Equipment|
|F01Z87Z||Neurophysiologic Intraoperative Assessment using Electrophysiologic Equipment|
|F01Z8JZ||Neurophysiologic Intraoperative Assessment using Somatosensory Equipment|
|F01Z9JZ||Somatosensory Evoked Potentials Assessment using Somatosensory Equipment|
Tonsillectomy without adenoidectomy
Tonsillectomy with adenoidectomy
Type of Service
Place of Service
|11/1/97||Add to Surgery section||New policy|
|07/12/02||Replace policy||Policy reviewed by consensus; new review date only|
|07/17/03||Replace policy||Policy reviewed by consensus; no change in policy|
|04/16/04||Replace policy||Policy reviewed with literature review; Medical Policy Panel concluded that intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring represents more of a credentialing and reimbursement issue that is not well addressed by a medical policy. Therefore, this policy is no longer reviewed|
|12/09/10||Replace policy-coding update only||ICD-10 codes added to policy|
|03/10/11||Replace policy||Policy returned to active review; literature search completed through January 2011; references added, policy statements changed to indicate motor-evoked potentials using transcranial electrical stimulation may be considered medically necessary and motor-evoked potential using transcranial magnetic stimulation is investigational, other policy statements unchanged|
|12/08/11||Replace policy||Policy updated with literature review through October 2011; references added and reordered; policy statements unchanged|
|12/13/12||Replace policy||Policy updated with literature review through October 2012; reference 6 added and references reordered; policy statements unchanged|