Aetna considers the use of computerized motion diagnostic imaging experimental and investigational for evaluation of the spine or any other indications because there is a lack of evidence that this imaging alters clinical management and improves clinical outcomes.
Computerized Motion Diagnostic Imaging (CMDI) Systems (Motion Diagnostics Laboratories, Hauppauge, NY) employ a dual-inclinometer and/or a long-arm goniometer and computer software to track range of motion and can allegedly estimate the percentage of impairment of the spine. However, there is a lack of evidence in the published peer-reviewed medical literature to support the usefulness of these devices in improving clinical outcomes.
Piche and colleagues (2007) developed a measurement method that could be implemented in chiropractic for the evaluation of angular and translational intervertebral motion of the cervical spine. Flexion-extension radiographs were digitized with a scanner at a ratio of 1:1 and imported into a software, allowing segmental motion measurements. The measurements were obtained by selecting the most antero-inferior point and the most postero-inferior point of a vertebral body (anterior and posterior arch, respectively, for C1), with the origin of the reference frame set at the most postero-inferior point of the vertebral body below. The same procedure was performed for both the flexion and extension radiographs, and the coordinates of the 2 points were used to calculate the angular movement and the translation between the 2 vertebrae. These researchers reported that this method provided a measure of intervertebral angular and translational movement. It uses a different reference frame for each joint instead of the same reference frame for all joints and thus provides a measure of motion in the plane of each articulation. The calculated values obtained are comparable to other studies on intervertebral motion and support further development to validate the method. The authors concluded that the present study proposes a computerized procedure to evaluate intervertebral motion of the cervical spine. This procedure needs to be validated with a reliability study but could provide a valuable tool for doctors of chiropractic and further spinal research.
Harrison et al (2008) examined the accuracy in measuring the pelvic orientations of a phantom model (a mannequin was fixed on a rotating platform) using the PosturePrint method. For a set of 3 photographs (left lateral, anterior to posterior, right lateral) of each position, the mannequin pelvis was placed in 68 different postures on a stand, 61 cm from a wall, in front of a digital camera. The camera was at 83.8 cm in height and at 3.35 m from a calibrated wall grid. Mannequin postures were in 5 degrees of freedom: lateral translation (Tx), lateral flexion (Rz), axial rotation (Ry), flexion-extension (Rx), and anterior-posterior translation (Tz). Average errors were the differences of the positioned postures to the PosturePrint computed values. Mean and SD of computational errors for rotation displacements were Rx = 0.5 degrees +/- 0.8 degrees , Ry = 1.3 degrees +/- 0.8 degrees , and Rz = 0.5 degrees +/- 0.3 degrees , and for translation, Tz = 1.2 +/- 0.6 mm and Tx = 0.9 +/- 0.5 mm. The authors concluded that the PosturePrint system allowed for accurate postural measurement of rotations and translations of a mannequin pelvis. The next step in evaluation of this product would be a reliability study on human subjects.
MacDonald and colleagues (2010) stated that previous research has quantified cervical spine motion with conventional measurement techniques (e.g., cadaveric studies, motion capture systems, and fluoroscopy), but these techniques were not designed to accurately measure three-dimensional (3-D) dynamic cervical spine motion under in- vivo conditions. The purposes of this study were to characterize the accuracy of model-based tracking for measuring 3-D dynamic cervical spine kinematics and to demonstrate its in-vivo application. The accuracy of model-based tracking for measuring cervical spine motion was determined in an in-vitro experiment. Tantalum beads were implanted into the vertebrae of an ovine specimen, and biplane X-ray images were acquired as the specimen's neck was manually moved through neck extension and axial neck rotation. The 3-D position and orientation of each cervical vertebra were determined from the biplane X-ray images using model-based tracking. For comparison, the position and orientation of each vertebra were also determined by tracking the position of the implanted beads with dynamic radio-stereometric analysis. To demonstrate in-vivo application of this technique, biplane X-ray images were acquired as a human subject performed 2 motion tasks: neck extension and axial neck rotation. The positions and orientations of each cervical vertebra were determined with model-based tracking. Cervical spine motion was reported with standard kinematic descriptions of translation and rotation. The in-vitro validation demonstrated that model-based tracking is accurate to within +/- 0.6 mm and +/- 0.6 degrees for measuring cervical spine motion. For the in-vivo application, there were significant rotations about all 3 anatomical axes for both the neck extension and axial neck rotation motion tasks. The authors concluded that model-based tracking is an accurate technique for measuring in-vivo, 3-D, dynamic cervical spine motion. They noted that these preliminary data acquired using this technique are in agreement with previous studies. It is anticipated that this experimental approach will enhance the understanding of cervical spine motion under normal and pathologic conditions.
CPT Codes / HCPCS Codes / ICD-9 Codes
CPT codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB:
ICD-9 codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB:
739.0 - 739.9
Non-allopathic lesions, NEC
The above policy is based on the following references:
Sullivan MS, Shoaf LD, Riddle DL. The relationship of lumbar flexion to disability in patients with low back pain. Phys Ther. 2000;80(3):240-250.
Nattrass CL, Nitschke JE, Disler PB, et al. Lumbar spine range of motion as a measure of physical and functional impairment: An investigation of validity. Clin Rehabil. 1999;13(3):211-218.
Nitschke JE, Nattrass CL, Disler PB, et al. Reliability of the American Medical Association guides' model for measuring spinal range of motion. Its implication for whole-person impairment rating. Spine. 1999;24(3):262-268.
Gualdi-Russo E, Russo P. A new technique for measurements on long bones: Development of a new instrument and techniques comparison. Anthropol Anz. 1995;53(2):153-182.
Schuler TC, Subach BR, Branch CL, et al. Segmental lumbar lordosis: Manual versus computer-assisted measurement using seven different techniques. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2004;17(5):372-379.
Piche M, Benoit P, Lambert J, et al. Development of a computerized intervertebral motion analysis of the cervical spine for clinical application. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2007;30(1):38-43.
Janik TJ, Harrison DE, Cailliet R, et al. Validity of a computer postural analysis to estimate 3-dimensional rotations and translations of the head from three 2-dimensional digital images. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2007;30(2):124-129.
Harrison DE, Janik TJ, Cailliet R, et al. Upright static pelvic posture as rotations and translations in 3-dimensional from three 2-dimensional digital images: Validation of a computerized analysis. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2008;31(2):137-145.
McDonald CP, Bachison CC, Chang V, et al. Three-dimensional dynamic in vivo motion of the cervical spine: Assessment of measurement accuracy and preliminary findings. Spine J. 2010;10(6):497-504.
Kim HJ, Green DW. Spondylolysis in the adolescent athlete. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2011;23(1):68-72.
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.