Aetna considers vitrectomy medically necessary for the following conditions: vitreous loss incident to cataract surgery, vitreous opacities due to vitreous hemorrhage or other causes, retinal detachments secondary to vitreous strands, proliferative retinopathy, vitreous retraction, traumatic penetrating ocular injury, and rapidly progressing infectious endophthalmitis.
Aetna considers the vitrectomy face support device (post-vitrectomy face-down support system) medically necessary for members who have undergone vitrectomy surgery, and who are required to maintain a face down position in the post-operative period.
Aetna considers monitoring of intra-ocular pressure during vitrectomy surgery experimental and investigational because of a lack of evidence that such monitoring improves clinical outcomes.
Vitrectomy is the surgical removal of the vitreous (transparent gel that fills the eye from the iris to the retina). Vitrectomy may be necessary for the following conditions (CMS, 2006): vitreous loss incident to cataract surgery, vitreous opacities due to vitreous hemorrhage or other causes, retinal detachments secondary to vitreous strands, proliferative retinopathy, and vitreous retraction.
Vitrectomy may be indicated for complications of diabetic retinopathy, including vitreous hemorrhage and retinal detachment. It may also be indicated for persons with traumatic penetrating ocular injury, non-diabetic vitreous hemorrhage, rapidly progressing infectious endophthalmitis, and cataract extractions complicated by a vitreous loss or an underlying inflammatory condition.
Wide fluctuations in intra-ocular pressure (IOP) have been documented during vitrectomy in animal models. Such fluctuations in IOP are posited to have potential adverse effects on retinal and optic nerve function and visual acuity recovery, especially for patients with compromised retinal or optic nerve blood flow and decreased ocular perfusion pressure.
An indirect method of monitoring IOP during vitrectomy surgery has been developed (Armoor Ophthalmics, Houston, TX), which involves placing disposable blood pressure transducers into the line tubing used for vitrectomy infusion. Moorhead et al (2005) reported on a clinical study in which this indirect method of IOP measurement was compared to direct measurement during vitrectomy procedures in 10 patients. Intra-ocular pressure was directly measured by inserting a catheter pressure transducer by an extra pars plana incision directly into the vitreous. During various maneuvers of vitrectomy, including air-fluid exchange and gas-forced fusion, pressure measurements were taken simultaneously from the indwelling pressure transducer and the disposable blood pressure sensors in the infusion line. The directly measured IOP varied between 0 and 120 mm Hg during vitrectomy. The investigators reported in each case how indirectly measured IOP during fluid flow, calculated from infusion line pressures, correlated with the directly measured IOP. The investigators commented that the variation in pressures encountered during these vitrectomy surgeries weree similar to measurements reported during cataract surgery. The investigators stated that it is likely that pressure variations documented in this study may be detrimental, but the physiological significance of these findings requires further study.
Following vitrectomy surgery (e.g., repair of macular hole, retinal detachment), face-down positioning may be required for several weeks to maximize retinal tamponade and, subsequently, hole closure or retinal attachment. The vitrectomy face-down positioning system (also known as a vitrectomy chair or a vitrectomy support system) is a device that may be appropriate in selected cases to assist the patient in maintaining a face down position. The rental of a vitrectomy face support may be necessary for up to 6 weeks after vitrectomy surgery.
Ishikawa et al (2009) evaluated the safety and effectiveness of intra-vitreal injection of bevacizumab (IVB) advanced to vitrectomy for severe proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR). A total of 8 eyes of 6 patients (33 to 64 years old, all male subjects) with severe PDR were investigated. An intra-vitreal injection of 1.25 mg bevacizumab was carried out 3 to 30 days before planned vitrectomy. All cases showed minimum bleeding during surgical dissection of fibro-vascular membrane. Two cases receiving bevacizumab 7 days before the surgery showed strong fibrosis and adhesion of fibro-vascular membrane, resulted in some surgical complications. The cases having IVB for shorter time did not show extensive fibrosis. The authors concluded that pre-treatment of bevacizumab is likely effective in the vitrectomy for severe PDR. The appropriate timing of vitrectomy after bevacizumab injection should be further evaluated.
In a review on diabetic retinopathy (DR), Cheung et al (2010) noted that although anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy has promising clinical applications for the management of DR, its long-term safety in patients with diabetes has not yet been established. Local adverse events of IVB include cataract formation, infection, retinal detachment, vitreous hemorrhage, as well as potential loss of neural retinal cells. Furthermore, a significant portion of anti-VEGF agents injected into the eye could pass into the systemic circulation. Thus, systemic inhibition of angiogenesis is a potential risk. Also, although clinical trials on the use of intra-vitreal anti-VEGF therapy for the treatment of age-related macular degeneration generally show low (0.6 to 1.2 %) rates of stroke, this risk could be increased in patients with DR because of pre-existing diabetes-related vascular disease.
Nicholson and Schachat (2010) stated that many observational and pre-clinical studies have implicated VEGF in the pathogenesis of DR, and recent successes with anti-VEGF therapy for age-related macular degeneration have prompted research into the application of anti-VEGF drugs to DR. These investigators reviewed the numerous early studies that suggest an important potential role for anti-VEGF agents in the management of DR. The authors concluded that for diabetic macular edema, phase II trials of intra-vitreal pegaptanib and intra-vitreal ranibizumab have shown short-term benefit in visual acuity. Intra-vitreal bevacizumab also has been shown to have beneficial short-term effects on both visual acuity and retinal thickness. For PDR, early studies suggest that IVB temporarily decreases leakage from diabetic neovascular lesions, but this treatment may be associated with tractional retinal detachment. Furthermore, several studies indicate that bevacizumab is likely to prove a helpful adjunct to diabetic pars plana vitrectomy for tractional retinal detachment. Finally, 3 small series suggest a potential beneficial effect of a single dose of bevacizumab to prevent worsening of diabetic macular edema (DME) after cataract surgery. The authors noted that use of anti-VEGF medications for any of these indications is off-label. Despite promising early reports on the safety of these medications, the results of large, controlled trials to substantiate the safety and efficacy of anti-VEGF drugs for diabetic retinopathy are eagerly awaited.
In a prospective, comparative case series, El-Sabagh and colleagues (2011) evaluated the effects of intervals between pre-operative IVB and surgery on the components of removed diabetic fibro-vascular proliferative membranes. A total of 52 eyes of 49 patients with active diabetic fibro-vascular proliferation with complications necessitating vitrectomy were included in this study. Participant eyes that had IVB were divided into 8 groups in which vitreo-retinal surgery was performed at days 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 15, 20, and 30 post-injection. A group of eyes with the same diagnosis and surgical intervention without IVB injection was used for comparison. In all eyes, proliferative membrane specimens obtained during vitrectomy were sent for histopathologic examination using hematoxylin-eosin stain, immunohistochemistry (CD34 and smooth muscle actin), and Masson's trichrome stain. Main outcome measure was comparative analysis of different components of the fibro-vascular proliferation (CD34, smooth muscle actin, and collagen) among the study groups. Pan-endothelial marker CD34 expression levels starting from day 5 post-injection were significantly less than in the control group (p < 0.001), with minimum expression (1+) in all specimens removed at or after day 30 post-injection. Positive staining for smooth muscle actin was barely detected in the control eyes at day 1, and consistently intense at day 15 and beyond (p < 0.001). The expression level of trichrome staining was significantly high at day 10, compared with control eyes (p < 0.001), and continued to increase at subsequent surgical time points. The author concluded that a pro-fibrotic switch was observed in diabetic fibro-vascular proliferation after IVB, and these findings suggest that at approximately 10 days post-IVB the vascular component of proliferation is markedly reduced, whereas the contractile components (smooth muscle actin and collagen) are not yet abundant. Moreover, the authors noted that their histologic findings are in agreement with many published clinical findings and might be predictive of an optimal time interval for the pre-operative use of adjunctive IVB, which makes surgery more successful with less intra-operative bleeding and complications; thus resulting in better visual outcomes. However, such favorable outcomes need validation from large-scale clinical studies.
Do and colleagues (2013) noted that cataract formation or acceleration can occur after intra-ocular surgery, especially following vitrectomy. The underlying problem that led to vitrectomy may limit the benefit from cataract surgery. In a Cochrane review, these researchers evaluated the safety and effectiveness of surgery for post-vitrectomy cataract with respect to visual acuity, quality of life, and other outcomes. They searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 4), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE in-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily Update, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to May 2013), EMBASE (January 1980 to May 2013, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to May 2013), PubMed (January 1946 to May 2013), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (http://www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (http://www.controlled-trials.com) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (http://www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). These investigators did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. They last searched the electronic databases on May 22, 2013. They planned to include randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing cataract surgery with no surgery in adult patients who developed cataract following vitrectomy. Two authors screened the search results independently according to the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. They found no randomized or quasi-RCTs comparing cataract surgery with no cataract surgery for patients who developed cataracts following vitrectomy surgery. The authors concluded that there is no evidence from randomized or quasi-RCTs on which to base clinical recommendations for surgery for post-vitrectomy cataract. There is a clear need for RCTs to address this evidence gap. Such trials should stratify participants by their age, the retinal disorder leading to vitrectomy, and the status of the underlying disease process in the contralateral eye. Outcomes assessed in such trials may include gain of vision on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) scale, quality of life, and adverse events such as posterior capsular rupture. Both short-term (6-month) and long-term (1-year or 2-year) outcomes should be examined.
Simunovic et al (2014) performed a meta-analysis of published RCTs regarding the effectiveness of vitrectomy for DME. These investigators searched PubMed and the Cochrane database for randomized, controlled trials investigating vitrectomy for DME. Structural (foveal thickness) and functional (visual acuity) outcomes were used as the primary outcome measures. A total of 11 studies met the criteria for inclusion in this review: these studies were heterogeneous in their experimental and control interventions, follow-up period, and eligibility criteria. Seven studies compared vitrectomy with the natural history of diabetic maculopathy, with laser, or with intra-vitreal corticosteroid injection; 4 studies compared vitrectomy with internal limiting membrane peeling to vitrectomy alone; 1 of the latter 4 studies was the only to investigate vitrectomy in patients with vitreo-macular traction. Meta-analysis suggested a structural, and possibly functional, superiority of vitrectomy over observation at 6 months. Vitrectomy also appears superior to laser in terms of structural, but not functional, outcomes at 6 months. At 12 months, vitrectomy offers no structural benefit and a trend toward inferior functional outcomes when compared with laser. The authors concluded that there is little evidence to support vitrectomy as an intervention for DME in the absence of epiretinal membrane or vitreo-macular traction. They noted that although vitrectomy appears to be superior to laser in its effects on retinal structure at 6 months, no such benefit has been proved at 12 months. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest a superiority of vitrectomy over laser in terms of functional outcomes.
An UpToDate review on “Diabetic retinopathy: Prevention and treatment” (Fraser and D’Amico, 2015) states that “Vitrectomy may be beneficial in selective cases of clinically significant ME. However, the results of vitrectomy are somewhat variable, ranging from no benefit to visual acuity gains of several lines or more. Some authors advocate simple removal of the vitreous gel, others recommend additional removal of the thick posterior hyaloid, and still others perform both of these and also remove the internal limiting membrane ("ILM peeling") of the retina itself. A systematic review of trials assessing a combination of these techniques versus observation or focal photocoagulation reported that vitrectomy may be beneficial in some patients with clinically significant ME, particularly in those with evidence of vitreo-macular traction, although the evidence was weak”.
An American Academy of Ophthalmology Preferred Practice Pattern on Diabetic Retinopathy (2014) stated that vitreous surgery is frequently indicated in patients with traction macular detachment (particularly of recent onset), combined traction–rhegmatogenous retinal detachment, and vitreous hemorrhage precluding panretinal photocoagulation. Patients with vitreous hemorrhage and rubeosis iridis also should be considered for prompt vitrectomy and intraoperative panretinal photocoagulation surgery.
|CPT Codes / HCPCS Codes / ICD-10 Codes|
|Information in the [brackets] below has been added for clarification purposes.  Codes requiring a 7th character are represented by "+":|
|ICD-10 codes will become effective as of October 1, 2015 :|
|CPT codes covered if selection criteria are met:|
|67036||Vitrectomy, mechanical, pars plana approach|
|67039||with focal endolaser photocoagulation|
|67040||with endolaser panretinal photocoagulation|
|67041||with removal of preretinal cellular membrane (e.g., macular pucker)|
|67042||with removal of internal limiting membrane of retina (e.g., for repair of macular hole, diabetic macular edema), includes, if performed, intraocular tamponade (i.e., air, gas or silicone oil)|
|67043||with removal of subretinal membrane (e.g., choroidal neovascularization), includes, if performed, intraocular tamponade (i.e., air, gas or silicone oil) and laser photocoagulation|
|Other CPT codes related to the CPB:|
|67005||Removal of vitreous, anterior approach (open sky technique or limbal incision); partial removal|
|67010||subtotal removal with mechanical vitrectomy|
|67027||Implantation of intravitreal drug delivery system (e.g., ganciclovir implant), includes concomitant removal of vitreous|
|67108||Repair of retinal detachment; with vitrectomy, any method, with or without air or gas tamponade, focal endolaser photocoagulation, cryotherapy, drainage of subretinal fluid, scleral buckling, and/or removal of lens by same technique|
|67113||Repair of complex retinal detachment (e.g., proliferative vitreoretinopathy, stage C-1 or greater, diabetic traction retinal detachment, retinopathy of prematurity, retinal tear of greater than 90 degrees), with vitrectomy and membrane peeling, may include air, gas, or silicone oil tamponade, cryotherapy, endolaser photocoagulation, drainage of subretinal fluid, scleral buckling, and/or removal of lens|
|ICD-10 codes covered if selection criteria are met:|
|E10.311 - E10.39||Type 1 diabetes mellitus with ophthalmic complications|
|E11.311 - E11.39||Type 2 diabetes mellitus with ophthalmic complications|
|H33.001 - H33.8||Retinal detachments and breaks|
|H35.341 - H35.349||Macular cyst, hole, or pseudohole|
|H43.10 - H43.13||Vitreous hemorrhage|
|H43.391 - H43.399||Other Vitreous opacities [vitreous opacities due to vitreous hemorrhage or other causes]|
|H43.89 - H43.9||Other and unspecified disorders of vitreous body [vitreous retraction; vitreous loss incident to cataract surgery]|
|H44.001 - H44.009||Purulent endopthalmitis|
|S05.00X+ - S05.92X+||Injury of eye and orbit|