Close Window
Aetna.com Home    |     Help    |     Contact Us

Search  
Aetna Aetna
Clinical Policy Bulletin:
Phonophoresis
Number: 0210


Policy

Aetna considers the use of phonophoresis experimental and investigational for any indications. Phonophoresis has been used to enhance the absorption of analgesics and anti-inflammatory agents. Controlled clinical trials, however, have failed to demonstrate that phonophoresis increases the rate or extent of absorption of these agents.



Background

Phonophoresis, also known as sonophoresis, has been claimed to enhance the percutaneous absorption of certain pharmacological agents such as anti-inflammatory steroids and local anesthetics from intact skin into the underlying subcutaneous structures by ultrasound, therefore improving their effectiveness.  This procedure is commonly used in physical therapy practices.  The procedure generally utilizes an ultrasound apparatus that generates frequencies of 0.7 to 1.1 MHz. The ultrasound intensities employed usually range from 0.0 to 3.0 Watts per cm2.  Both continuous-mode as well as pulse-mode applications were utilized, and most treatments lasted from 5 to 8 mins, with the exception of treatments of larger areas (greater than 36 cm2) requiring more than 8 mins. The exact mechanism enabling drugs to be propelled into the subcutaneous structures is still unclear.

Phonophoresis has been suggested by early studies to enhance the absorption of analgesics and anti-inflammatory agents. More recent, better-controlled studies have consistently failed to demonstrate that phonophoresis increases the rate of absorption or the extent of absorption over placebo. Several reviews stated that more research is needed to ascertain optimal techniques and conditions for safe and efficacious utilization of physical modalities including phonophoresis; and there is a need for additional research to establish clinical effectiveness and determine optimal treatment parameters for the physical agents (e.g., phonophoresis) used most frequently to alleviate pain in hand therapy.

In a randomized study (n = 60) comparing the effectiveness of ibuprofen phonophoresis with conventional ultrasound therapy in patients with knee osteoarthritis, Kozanoglu et al (2003) found that ibuprofen phonophoresis was not superior to conventional ultrasound.

Ellis et al (2007) stated that Iliotibial band friction syndrome (ITBFS) is a common injury of the lateral aspect of the knee particularly in runners, cyclists and endurance sports. A number of investigators suggested that ITBFS responds well to conservative treatment, however, much of this notion appears anecdotal and is not supported by available evidence. These researchers performed a systematic review of the literature on the conservative treatment of ITBFS. With respect to the management of ITBFS, 4 randomized controlled trials were identified. The interventions examined included the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, deep friction massage, phonophoresis versus immobilization and corticosteroid injection. This review highlighted both the paucity in quality and quantity of research regarding the conservative treatment of ITBFS. There seems limited evidence to suggest that the conservative treatments that have been studied offer any significant benefit in the management of ITBFS. The authors noted that future research will need to re-examine those conservative therapies, which have already been examined, along with others, and will need to be of sufficient quality to enable accurate clinical judgements to be made regarding their use.

In a review on factors that influence the quality and effectiveness of ultrasound and phonophoresis treatment, Goraj-Szczypiorowska and colleagues (2007) noted that although phonophoresis is commonly used among physical therapists, doubts persist as to the relevance and effectiveness of this method. Despite its popularity, the issue of conditions underlying the effectiveness of phonophoresis treatment has still not been adequately addressed. Particular areas of interest include: (i) treatment parameters to be followed in physical therapy, (ii) appropriate dosage forms of drugs to ensure propagation of ultrasound waves, (iii) principles of homoeostasis and other physiological processes that play a decisive role in achieving the biological and therapeutic effects of ultrasound therapy, and (iv) indications and contraindications to this kind of treatment. The dearth of objective research methods and reliable scientific verification does not allow unambiguous determination of the effectiveness of phonophoresis.

 
CPT Codes / HCPCS Codes / ICD-9 Codes
There is no specific code for phonophoresis:
Other CPT codes related to the CPB:
97035


The above policy is based on the following references:
  1. McElnay JC, Matthews MP, Harland R, McCafferty DF. The effect of ultrasound on the percutaneous absorption of lignocaine. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1985;20(4):412-424.
  2. Williams AR. Phonophoresis: An in vivo evaluation using three topical anaesthetic preparations. Ultrasonics. 1990;28(3):137-141.
  3. Benson HA, McElnay JC, Harland R. Use of ultrasound to enhance percutaneous absorption of benzydamine. Phys Ther. 1989;69(2):113-118.
  4. Bly NN. The use of ultrasound as an enhancer for transcutaneous drug delivery: Phonophoresis. Phys Ther. 1995;75:539-553.
  5. Bare AC, McAnaw MB, Pritchard AE, et al. Phonophoretic delivery of 10% hydrocortisone through the epidermis of humans as determined by serum cortisol concentrations. Phys Ther. 1996;76(7):738-745; discussion 746-749.
  6. Kassan DG, Lynch AM, Stiller MJ. Physical enhancement of dermatologic drug delivery: Iontophoresis and phonophoresis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1996;34(4):657-666.
  7. Fedorczyk J. The role of physical agents in modulating pain. J Hand Ther. 1997;10(2):110-121.
  8. Klaiman MD, Shrader JA, Danoff JV, et al. Phonophoresis versus ultrasound in the treatment of common musculoskeletal conditions. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1998;30(9):1349-1355.
  9. van der Windt DA, van der Heijden GJ, van den Berg SG, et al. Ultrasound therapy for musculoskeletal disorders: A systematic review. Pain. 1999;81(3):257-271.
  10. Sevier TL, Wilson JK. Treating lateral epicondylitis. Sports Med. 1999;28(5):375-380.
  11. Machet L, Boucaud A. Phonophoresis: Efficiency, mechanisms and skin tolerance. Int J Pharm. 2002;243(1-2):1-15.
  12. Kozanoglu E, Basaran S, Guzel R, Guler-Uysal F. Short term efficacy of ibuprofen phonophoresis versus continuous ultrasound therapy in knee osteoarthritis. Swiss Med Wkly. 2003;133(23-24):333-338.
  13. Coates VH, Turkelson CM, Chapell R, et al. and the ECRI Health Technology Assessment Group. Diagnosis and treatment of worker-related musculoskeletal disorders of the upper extremity. Evidence Report/ Technology Assessment No. 62. AHRQ Publication No. 02-E038. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ); December 2002.
  14. Meidan VM, Michniak BB. Emerging technologies in transdermal therapeutics. Am J Ther. 2004;11(4):312-316.
  15. Vranic E. Sonophoresis-mechanisms and application. Bosn J Basic Med Sci. 2004;4(2):25-32.
  16. Michlovitz SL. Is there a role for ultrasound and electrical stimulation following injury to tendon and nerve? J Hand Ther. 2005;18(2):292-296.
  17. Bisset L, Paungmali A, Vicenzino B, Beller E. A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials on physical interventions for lateral epicondylalgia. Br J Sports Med. 2005;39(7):411-422.
  18. Nimgade A, Sullivan M, Goldman R. Physiotherapy, steroid injections, or rest for lateral epicondylosis? What the evidence suggests. Pain Pract. 2005;5(3):203-215.
  19. Hoppenrath T, Ciccone CD. Is there evidence that phonophoresis is more effective than ultrasound in treating pain associated with lateral epicondylitis? Phys Ther. 2006;86(1):136-140.
  20. Ellis R, Hing W, Reid D. Iliotibial band friction syndrome--a systematic review. Man Ther. 2007;12(3):200-208.
  21. Goraj-Szczypiorowska B, Zajac L, Skalska-Izdebska R. Evaluation of factors influencing the quality and efficacy of ultrasound and phonophoresis treatment. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil. 2007;9(5):449-458.
  22. Rand SE, Goerlich C, Marchand K, Jablecki N. The physical therapy prescription. Am Fam Physician. 2007;76(11):1661-1666.


email this page   


Copyright Aetna Inc. All rights reserved. Clinical Policy Bulletins are developed by Aetna to assist in administering plan benefits and constitute neither offers of coverage nor medical advice. This Clinical Policy Bulletin contains only a partial, general description of plan or program benefits and does not constitute a contract. Aetna does not provide health care services and, therefore, cannot guarantee any results or outcomes. Participating providers are independent contractors in private practice and are neither employees nor agents of Aetna or its affiliates. Treating providers are solely responsible for medical advice and treatment of members. This Clinical Policy Bulletin may be updated and therefore is subject to change.
Aetna
Back to top