Is endoscopic neurectomy (transection of bilateral S1, S2, and S3 spinal lateral branch nerves) medically necessary for treating chronic sacroiliac joint pain?

DETERMINATION: NON-CERTIFICATION

The requested endoscopic neurectomy (bilateral S1, S2, S3 spinal lateral branch transection, CPT 64772 x6 and 64999) should be denied as it is explicitly listed as "not covered" and "unproven because of insufficient evidence" for chronic low back pain treatment, and the patient has not met the fundamental diagnostic requirements for any sacroiliac joint denervation procedure. 1

---

RATIONALE FOR DENIAL

Primary Coverage Issue

• CPT 64772 is explicitly excluded under the Clinical Policy Bulletin (CPB) as "unproven because of insufficient evidence of effectiveness" for direct visual rhizotomy (extradural transection or avulsion of other spinal nerve) in treating chronic low back pain 1
• Endoscopic neurectomy lacks established evidence for sacroiliac joint pain, with the procedure being so non-standardized that it requires an unlisted CPT code (64999), indicating it is not a recognized standard of care 2
• The 2025 BMJ clinical practice guideline on interventional procedures for chronic spine pain does not support endoscopic neurectomy, noting that even radiofrequency denervation of the sacroiliac joint requires careful patient selection and has limited evidence 3

Diagnostic Deficiencies

Inadequate Diagnostic Confirmation:

• The patient requires at least two separate diagnostic sacral lateral branch blocks on different occasions with ≥50% pain relief to confirm the SI joint as the pain generator 2
• The documentation shows conflicting results: reports of 80-90% relief from sacral blocks, but also mentions "neg MBB#1" and only "30% relief with bilat L5-S1 TFESI" 1
• A 30% improvement from diagnostic blocks is insufficient to justify any denervation procedure 2
• The diagnostic criteria require reproducible pain relief with validated pain scales and functional improvement documented on separate occasions 2, 4

Misaligned Diagnosis:

• The primary diagnosis of "spondylosis without myelopathy or radiculopathy, lumbar region" does not align with isolated SI joint pain 1, 2
• MRI findings reveal L5-S1 pathology with moderate bilateral neural foraminal stenosis and facet arthropathy, indicating multiple potential pain generators 1, 2
• The presence of L3-4 anterolisthesis with pars defects has not been adequately addressed as a contributing pain source 1
• Negative medial branch blocks at L4-5 and L5-S1 suggest facet joints are not the primary pain source, but this creates diagnostic uncertainty about the true pain generator 1

Treatment Algorithm Violations

Failure to Follow Evidence-Based Stepwise Approach:

• The established treatment algorithm requires: (1) conservative management, (2) diagnostic injections, (3) cooled radiofrequency ablation, and only then consideration of more invasive options 1, 4
• Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of sacral lateral branches is the established therapeutic intervention after diagnostic blocks, with moderate evidence for pain relief from the posterior sacroiliac joint complex 1, 4
• Cooled RFA demonstrates the strongest evidence among denervation techniques for SI joint pain, with documented efficacy in numerous studies 4
• The patient should proceed with cooled radiofrequency ablation of bilateral S1, S2, S3 lateral branches as the evidence-based next step given the reported 80-90% relief from diagnostic blocks 1
• Only after documented failure of multiple RFA attempts would more invasive options be reconsidered 1

Inadequate Conservative Treatment:

• While the patient reports failed physical therapy, medications, and activity modification, there is no documentation of SI joint-specific physical therapy with pelvic stabilization exercises and muscle balancing 4, 5
• No evidence of intra-articular corticosteroid injections, which have been documented to produce pain relief for over 3 months in some patients 4, 6
• Conservative management should include manual medicine techniques, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and multimodal rehabilitation before proceeding to denervation 4, 5

Risk-Benefit Analysis

Unacceptable Risk Profile:

• The risks of this extensive surgical procedure outweigh any potential benefits given the lack of established efficacy for endoscopic neurectomy and inadequate diagnostic confirmation 2
• This is a permanent, irreversible procedure (nerve transection) being requested before trying reversible options like cooled RFA 1
• The 2025 BMJ guideline emphasizes that patients would be disinclined to receive treatment with an interventional procedure for which there is very low certainty of evidence for benefit 3
• The procedure exposes the patient to surgical complications without proven benefit over less invasive alternatives 6

---

RECOMMENDED CLINICAL PATHWAY

Immediate Steps Required Before Any Denervation:

1. Complete diagnostic confirmation with at least two separate sacral lateral branch blocks (S1, S2, S3) performed on different occasions, each demonstrating ≥50% pain relief with documented duration 2, 4

2. Address alternative pain generators: Evaluate and treat the documented L5-S1 pathology with moderate bilateral foraminal stenosis and L3-4 anterolisthesis with pars defects 1, 2

3. Implement comprehensive conservative treatment:

   • SI joint-specific physical therapy with pelvic stabilization exercises 4, 5
   • Intra-articular corticosteroid injections into the SI joint 4, 6
   • Manual medicine techniques and muscle balancing 4, 5

4. Trial of cooled radiofrequency ablation: If diagnostic blocks are definitively positive, proceed with cooled RFA of bilateral S1, S2, S3 lateral branches, which has the strongest evidence for SI joint denervation 1, 4

5. Document treatment failures: Only after multiple failed RFA attempts with adequate technique and appropriate patient selection would consideration of more invasive options be appropriate 1

---

COMMON PITFALLS TO AVOID

• Do not proceed with permanent nerve transection before exhausting reversible options with established evidence 1
• Do not accept single diagnostic block results or relief below 50% as adequate confirmation 2
• Do not ignore concurrent pathology (L5-S1 stenosis, L3-4 anterolisthesis) that may be the primary pain generator 1, 2
• Do not skip cooled RFA, which has moderate evidence and is less invasive than surgical neurectomy 1, 4
• Do not use unlisted procedure codes (64999) for procedures that lack standardization and evidence 2

---

FINAL DETERMINATION

NON-CERTIFICATION of CPT 64772 x6 and 64999 based on:

1. Explicit CPB exclusion of direct visual rhizotomy as unproven 1
2. Inadequate diagnostic confirmation with conflicting block results 1, 2
3. Failure to complete evidence-based treatment algorithm, specifically cooled RFA 1, 4
4. Unacceptable risk-benefit ratio for a permanent procedure lacking established efficacy 3, 2
5. Presence of alternative pain generators not adequately addressed 1, 2