Are the requested procedures, 20930 - Spinal Bone Allograft (SP BONE ALGRFT MORSEL ADD-ON) and 22853 - Insertion of Biomechanical Device (INSJ BIOMECHANICAL DEVICE), medically necessary for a patient with spondylolisthesis, radiculopathy, and spinal stenosis of the lumbar region undergoing spinal surgery?

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 29, 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 20930 (Spinal Bone Allograft) and CPT 22853 (Biomechanical Device) in MIS TLIF L3-4

Direct Answer

Both CPT 20930 (spinal bone allograft morselized add-on) and CPT 22853 (insertion of interbody biomechanical device) are medically necessary for this patient undergoing MIS TLIF at L3-4 given the documented Grade 1 anterolisthesis with failed extensive conservative management. 1

Clinical Context Supporting Medical Necessity

Patient Meets Fusion Criteria

This patient satisfies all evidence-based requirements for lumbar fusion:

  • Documented instability: Grade 1 anterolisthesis of L5 on L4 constitutes spinal instability, which is a Grade B indication for fusion in addition to decompression 1, 2

  • Failed comprehensive conservative management: The patient completed extensive nonoperative treatment including formal physical therapy, multiple pain management injections (epidural steroid injections and RFA), and trials of multiple medications (gabapentin, meloxicam, NSAIDs, opioids) for more than the required duration 1

  • Significant functional impairment: The patient demonstrates severe quality of life impact with modified activities of daily living, missed work days, and cessation of social activities due to pain 1

  • Imaging correlation with symptoms: MRI demonstrates Grade 1 anterolisthesis at L3-4 level with disc narrowing, degenerative facet joint changes, and stenosis corresponding to the clinical presentation of right lower extremity radiculopathy 1

Medical Necessity of CPT 22853 (Interbody Biomechanical Device/Cage)

Evidence Supporting Interbody Fusion

The interbody cage is medically necessary because:

  • Superior fusion rates: Interbody techniques demonstrate fusion rates of 89-95% compared to 67-92% with posterolateral fusion alone in patients with degenerative disc disease and spondylolisthesis 1

  • Biomechanical advantages: TLIF provides high fusion rates (92-95%) and allows simultaneous decompression of neural elements while stabilizing the spine, avoiding anterior approach morbidity while achieving circumferential fusion 1

  • Spondylolisthesis indication: The presence of spondylolisthesis is a risk factor for delayed clinical and radiographic failure after lumbar decompressive procedures, with up to 73% risk of progressive slippage without fusion 2, 3

  • Grade B recommendation: Surgical decompression and fusion is recommended as an effective treatment for symptomatic stenosis associated with degenerative spondylolisthesis in patients who desire surgical treatment 1, 4

Clinical Outcomes Data

  • Patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis and stenosis treated with decompression plus fusion report 96% excellent/good outcomes versus only 44% with decompression alone 1, 5

  • Combined decompression and fusion offers statistically significantly less back pain (p=0.01) and leg pain (p=0.002) compared to decompression alone 1

Medical Necessity of CPT 20930 (Spinal Bone Allograft Morselized)

Evidence-Based Bone Grafting Recommendations

Bone graft material is essential for achieving solid arthrodesis:

  • Equivalent fusion outcomes: Local autograft harvested during laminectomy combined with allograft provides equivalent fusion outcomes and is approved for single-level TLIF procedures 1

  • Grade C evidence: β-tricalcium phosphate/local autograft as a substitute for autologous iliac crest bone demonstrates comparable fusion rates and clinical outcomes in single-level instrumented posterolateral fusion 1

  • Avoidance of donor site morbidity: Iliac crest bone graft harvesting is associated with donor-site pain in up to 58-64% of patients at 6 months post-operatively, plus additional morbidity including increased operative time and blood loss 1

  • High fusion rates achievable: Fusion rates of 89-95% are achievable with local autograft combined with allograft or bone graft substitutes in instrumented single-level TLIF 1

Rationale for Allograft Selection

The use of allograft morselized bone is appropriate because:

  • Local autograft alone from the decompression may be insufficient for achieving solid fusion in a patient with degenerative changes 1

  • Allograft combined with local autograft represents a Grade C option with comparable outcomes to autologous iliac crest bone while avoiding harvest site complications 1

  • Autologous bone is considered the best option whenever possible, and combining local autograft with allograft extender maximizes fusion potential 2

Surgical Approach Justification

Why TLIF is Appropriate for This Patient

  • Unilateral approach: TLIF offers high fusion rates while minimizing dural retraction through a unilateral approach 1

  • Circumferential fusion: The technique allows placement of graft within the load-bearing column of the spine, providing biomechanical advantages 1

  • Instability management: TLIF is specifically appropriate for patients with nerve root compression and instability, providing fusion rates of 92-95% 1, 6

Critical Pitfalls to Avoid

Common Errors in Surgical Planning

  • Decompression alone in spondylolisthesis: Performing decompression without fusion in patients with documented spondylolisthesis carries up to 73% risk of progressive slippage and poor outcomes 2, 3

  • Inadequate bone graft: Failure to use adequate bone graft material (either autograft, allograft, or bone graft substitutes) significantly reduces fusion rates and increases risk of pseudarthrosis 1

  • Ignoring instability: The presence of Grade 1 anterolisthesis represents documented instability that requires fusion, not decompression alone 1, 2, 5

Expected Outcomes

Clinical Improvement Anticipated

  • Pain reduction: Significant improvements in back pain and leg pain scores compared to preoperative baseline 1

  • Functional recovery: 93% of patients treated with decompression/fusion report satisfaction with outcomes, with statistically significant improvements in ability to perform activities, participate socially, sit, and sleep 1

  • Fusion success: Expected fusion rate of 89-95% with appropriate instrumentation and graft materials 1

  • Symptom resolution: Resolution of radiculopathy and neurogenic claudication in the majority of TLIF cases 1

Conclusion on Medical Necessity

Both requested procedures are medically necessary and supported by high-quality evidence:

  1. CPT 22853 (interbody device): Required to achieve superior fusion rates and biomechanical stability in a patient with documented spondylolisthesis 1, 2

  2. CPT 20930 (bone allograft): Necessary to maximize fusion potential while avoiding iliac crest harvest morbidity, with Grade C evidence supporting equivalent outcomes 1

The patient meets all criteria for fusion (documented instability, failed conservative management, significant functional impairment, imaging correlation), and the proposed surgical approach with interbody device and bone graft represents evidence-based standard of care for degenerative spondylolisthesis with stenosis 1, 2, 6, 3, 5.

References

1
Guideline

Medical Necessity of Lumbar Fusion

Praxis Medical Insights: Practical Summaries of Clinical Guidelines, 2025

2
Guideline

Lumbar Spine Fusion for Spinal Stenosis with Neurogenic Claudication

Praxis Medical Insights: Practical Summaries of Clinical Guidelines, 2025

4
Guideline

Inpatient Care for Lumbar Fusion with Spondylolisthesis and Synovial Cyst

Praxis Medical Insights: Practical Summaries of Clinical Guidelines, 2025

5
Research

Lumbar stenosis with spondylolisthesis: current concepts of surgical treatment.

Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2001

Related Questions

Is inpatient L4-S1 decompression and fusion medically necessary for a patient with lumbar spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis, and radiculopathy, despite MCG noting the procedure as ambulatory?
Is lumbar facet fusion L4/L5 (Lumbar Spine Fusion) medically necessary for a patient with lumbar spondylosis who has failed conservative treatments?
Is extensive spinal surgery, specifically T12-S2 fusion with lumbar laminectomies, medically necessary for a patient with significant stenosis, spondylolisthesis, and coronal plane deformity who has failed conservative treatment?
Is the unlisted procedure code 22899 for retroperitoneal access to the spine (anterior retroperitoneal exposure of spine L4-L5) medically necessary for a patient with spinal stenosis (M48.061), spondylolisthesis (M43.16), and other spondylosis with radiculopathy (M47.26)?
Is inpatient level of care medically necessary for a patient with lumbar radiculopathy and lumbar spinal stenosis with neurogenic claudication undergoing L3-5 anterior posterior fusion?
What are the methods for measuring core temperature?
What is the best treatment approach for an elderly female patient with a unilateral hernia?
What could be causing a 76-year-old patient's intermittent syncopal episodes while taking albuterol sulfate (HFA aerosol inhaler), aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid), atorvastatin, carvedilol (beta-blocker), amlodipine (Norvasc, calcium channel blocker), clopidogrel (Plavix), and other medications?
What is the dosage and risk of postural hypotension with silodosin?
What are alternative options to Breo (fluticasone/vilanterol) for patients requiring a different treatment?
What are the next steps for a patient with prostatitis, initially treated with IV (intravenous) Rocephin (Ceftriaxone) and transitioned to oral Levaquin (Levofloxacin), who has developed urinary retention, has an elevated white blood cell count (leukocytosis), and is afebrile, with a decrease in Prostate-Specific Antigen (PSA) levels from 20 to 7, and is currently on Flomax (Tamsulosin)?

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