Is CPT (Current Procedural Terminology) code 22849 reinsert spinal fixation medically necessary for revision of L2-L5 fusion in a patient with intervertebral disc degeneration in the lumbar region, presenting with low back and left leg pain, and a history of previous multilevel lumbar fusion?

Medical Advisory BoardAll articles are reviewed for accuracy by our Medical Advisory Board
Educational purpose only • Exercise caution as content is pending human review
Article Review Status
Submitted
Under Review
Approved

Last updated: December 18, 2025 • View editorial policy

Personalize

Help us tailor your experience

Which best describes you? Your choice helps us use language that's most understandable for you.

Medical Necessity Assessment for CPT 22849 Reinsertion of Spinal Fixation in Revision L2-L5 Fusion

CPT code 22849 (reinsertion of spinal fixation device) is medically necessary for this patient undergoing revision of L2-L5 fusion with symptomatic low back and left leg pain following previous multilevel lumbar fusion, as hardware removal and replacement is required to address potential implant-related pain sources and facilitate proper placement of new instrumentation across the extended fusion construct. 1

Clinical Justification for Hardware Removal and Reinsertion

The presence of low back and left leg pain following previous multilevel lumbar fusion represents potential hardware-related complications that necessitate removal and reinsertion of fixation devices. Previous studies demonstrate that 25% of instrumented fusion patients require reoperation for implant removal due to back or leg pain, with malpositioned screws being a common cause. 2 Hardware removal is necessary to address these potential sources of ongoing pain and to facilitate proper placement of new instrumentation across the extended fusion construct. 1

Evidence Supporting Revision Surgery with Hardware Exchange

  • Revision surgery for failed lumbosacral fixation commonly requires complete hardware removal and replacement with enhanced fixation strategies. In a series of 33 patients with failed lumbosacral fixation, 21 underwent revision surgery with hardware exchange, and 15 of 21 (71%) achieved solid fusion at ultimate follow-up. 3

  • Bilateral S1 screws coupled with bilateral iliac screws provide excellent distal fixation for lumbosacral fusions with a high fusion rate (95.1%) in revision scenarios. This construct is particularly critical when extending fusions or addressing pseudarthrosis. 4

Rationale for Pedicle Screw Reinsertion in Revision Cases

Pedicle screw instrumentation is specifically recommended for patients at high risk for pseudarthrosis, including those undergoing revision surgery. 2, 5 The 2014 guideline update from the Journal of Neurosurgery explicitly states that high-risk patients, including those undergoing revision surgery, may appreciate greater benefit with supplemental pedicle screw fixation. 2

Biomechanical Necessity in Revision Constructs

  • Pedicle screw instrumentation provides optimal biomechanical stability with fusion rates up to 95% compared to significantly lower rates without instrumentation, particularly critical in revision surgery. 1 This is essential when addressing adjacent segment disease or pseudarthrosis following previous fusion. 1

  • Interbody fusion techniques demonstrate higher fusion rates (89-95%) compared to posterolateral fusion alone (67-92%) in degenerative disc disease. 1 The combination of interbody support with pedicle screw fixation is the standard approach for revision multilevel lumbar fusion. 1

Specific Indications for Hardware Reinsertion in This Clinical Scenario

The patient's presentation with low back and left leg pain following previous multilevel lumbar fusion, combined with intervertebral disc degeneration in the lumbar region, meets criteria for revision surgery with hardware exchange. 1 The clinical scenario suggests either adjacent segment disease, pseudarthrosis, or hardware-related complications—all of which require removal of existing hardware and placement of new fixation. 1, 3

Adjacent Segment Disease Considerations

  • Adjacent segment disease at levels rostral or caudal to previous fusion typically requires extension of instrumentation to include the newly affected level(s). 6 This necessitates removal of existing rod constructs and placement of longer rods with additional pedicle screws. 6

  • Seventeen of 19 patients without distal fixation to sacral screws had screw loosening/pullout at L5 or S1, requiring revision with enhanced fixation strategies. 3 This demonstrates the necessity of hardware exchange rather than simple addition of new screws. 3

Common Pitfalls and Technical Considerations

Failure to adequately address all sources of instability and pain during revision surgery leads to poor outcomes. Ensure complete removal of loose or malpositioned hardware, adequate decompression of neural elements at all symptomatic levels, and placement of robust fixation with consideration for iliac screw augmentation in lumbosacral constructs. 1, 3, 4

Revision Surgery Complexity

  • Multi-level circumferential fusion procedures have significantly higher complication rates (31-40%) compared to single-approach procedures (6-12%), requiring meticulous surgical technique. 1 The complexity of hardware removal and reinsertion in revision cases justifies the additional procedural codes. 1

  • Revision surgery in patients with failed lumbosacral fixation remains a challenge, with 6 of 21 patients experiencing additional rod breakage or dislodgement at the lumbosacral junction despite revision. 3 This underscores the importance of comprehensive hardware exchange with enhanced fixation strategies. 3

Expected Outcomes with Hardware Reinsertion

Clinical improvement occurs in 86-92% of patients undergoing revision interbody fusion for degenerative pathology, with significant reduction in disability scores. 1 Fusion rates of 89-95% are expected with combined anterior-posterior techniques using appropriate instrumentation in revision scenarios. 1

  • Solid fusion was achieved in 10 of 12 patients (83%) presenting with L5-S1 pseudarthrosis after reconstruction with bilateral S1 and iliac screws. 4 This demonstrates the efficacy of comprehensive hardware revision in achieving successful arthrodesis. 4

  • No patients required revision anterior operation after primary ALIF surgery in a series of 110 consecutive patients, with a 90-day complication rate of 10%. 7 When hardware reinsertion is performed with appropriate technique, the risk of subsequent revision is minimized. 7

References

1
Guideline

Medical Necessity Assessment for Multi-Level Lumbar Fusion with Hardware Removal

Praxis Medical Insights: Practical Summaries of Clinical Guidelines, 2025

2
Guideline

Guideline Directed Topic Overview

Dr.Oracle Medical Advisory Board & Editors, 2025

5
Guideline

Indications and Contraindications for Lumbar Fusion

Praxis Medical Insights: Practical Summaries of Clinical Guidelines, 2025

6
Research

Biomechanical analysis of lateral interbody fusion strategies for adjacent segment degeneration in the lumbar spine.

The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society, 2017

Related Questions

Is continued inpatient location medically necessary for a patient postoperative from L2-L3 XLIF (eXtreme Lateral Interbody Fusion), posterior decompression, and posterolateral instrumentation?
Is removal of hardware with L3-4 decompression and fusion with pedicle screw and cage medically necessary, and is inpatient admission required for this ambulatory procedure?
Is L2-3 Extreme Lumbar Interbody Fusion and L2-S1 Posterior Lumbar Decompression and Fusion medically indicated for a patient with radiculopathy, severe stenosis, retrolisthesis, and moderate diffuse disc bulge?
Is L3-S1 Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (ALIF) and L2-S1 posterior decompression medically indicated for a patient with moderate lumbar stenosis, severe low back pain, and significant neurological symptoms, who has failed conservative management with Physical Therapy (PT), muscle relaxants, anti-inflammatories, and Tramadol (tramadol)?
Is exploration spinal fusion code (22830) medically necessary for a patient with severe stenosis at L3-4 and no imaging findings of pseudoarthrosis, undergoing re-exploration with reinstumentation of a previous fusion, decompression, and posterior lumbar interbody fusion?
What is the meaning of dual diagnosis?
What antibiotic should be used if nitrofurantoin (antibiotic) is not effective in a patient with a Foley catheter (indwelling urinary catheter)?
Can alcoholism cause thrombocytopenia (low platelet count)?
What are the pregnancy-safe abortive medications for migraine?
What is the management approach for eosinophilic esophagitis?
What is the recommended treatment for erectile dysfunction using Cialis (tadalafil)?

Professional Medical Disclaimer

This information is intended for healthcare professionals. Any medical decision-making should rely on clinical judgment and independently verified information. The content provided herein does not replace professional discretion and should be considered supplementary to established clinical guidelines. Healthcare providers should verify all information against primary literature and current practice standards before application in patient care. Dr.Oracle assumes no liability for clinical decisions based on this content.

Have a follow-up question?

Our Medical A.I. is used by practicing medical doctors at top research institutions around the world. Ask any follow up question and get world-class guideline-backed answers instantly.

Ask Question