SUPERSEDED Local Coverage Determination (LCD)

Percutaneous Vertebral Augmentation (PVA) for Vertebral Compression Fracture (VCF)


Expand All | Collapse All
Proposed LCD
Proposed LCDs are works in progress that are available on the Medicare Coverage Database site for public review. Proposed LCDs are not necessarily a reflection of the current policies or practices of the contractor.
To see the currently-in-effect version of this document, go to the section.

Document Note

Note History

Contractor Information

LCD Information

Document Information

Source LCD ID
Original ICD-9 LCD ID
Not Applicable
LCD Title
Percutaneous Vertebral Augmentation (PVA) for Vertebral Compression Fracture (VCF)
Proposed LCD in Comment Period
Source Proposed LCD
Original Effective Date
For services performed on or after 11/18/2019
Revision Effective Date
For services performed on or after 10/06/2022
Revision Ending Date
Retirement Date
Notice Period Start Date
Notice Period End Date
AMA CPT / ADA CDT / AHA NUBC Copyright Statement

CPT codes, descriptions and other data only are copyright 2023 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved. Applicable FARS/HHSARS apply.

Fee schedules, relative value units, conversion factors and/or related components are not assigned by the AMA, are not part of CPT, and the AMA is not recommending their use. The AMA does not directly or indirectly practice medicine or dispense medical services. The AMA assumes no liability for data contained or not contained herein.

Current Dental Terminology © 2023 American Dental Association. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2023, the American Hospital Association, Chicago, Illinois. Reproduced with permission. No portion of the American Hospital Association (AHA) copyrighted materials contained within this publication may be copied without the express written consent of the AHA. AHA copyrighted materials including the UB‐04 codes and descriptions may not be removed, copied, or utilized within any software, product, service, solution or derivative work without the written consent of the AHA. If an entity wishes to utilize any AHA materials, please contact the AHA at 312‐893‐6816.

Making copies or utilizing the content of the UB‐04 Manual, including the codes and/or descriptions, for internal purposes, resale and/or to be used in any product or publication; creating any modified or derivative work of the UB‐04 Manual and/or codes and descriptions; and/or making any commercial use of UB‐04 Manual or any portion thereof, including the codes and/or descriptions, is only authorized with an express license from the American Hospital Association. The American Hospital Association (the "AHA") has not reviewed, and is not responsible for, the completeness or accuracy of any information contained in this material, nor was the AHA or any of its affiliates, involved in the preparation of this material, or the analysis of information provided in the material. The views and/or positions presented in the material do not necessarily represent the views of the AHA. CMS and its products and services are not endorsed by the AHA or any of its affiliates.


Issue Description

This LCD outlines limited coverage for this service with specific details under Coverage Indications, Limitations and/or Medical Necessity.

Issue - Explanation of Change Between Proposed LCD and Final LCD

CMS National Coverage Policy

Language quoted from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), National Coverage Determinations (NCDs) and coverage provisions in interpretive manuals is italicized throughout the policy. NCDs and coverage provisions in interpretive manuals are not subject to the Local Coverage Determination (LCD) Review Process (42 CFR 405.860[b] and 42 CFR 426 [Subpart D]). In addition, an administrative law judge may not review an NCD. See §1869(f)(1)(A)(i) of the Social Security Act.

Unless otherwise specified, italicized text represents quotation from one or more of the following CMS sources:

Title XVIII of the Social Security Act (SSA):

Section 1862(a)(1)(A) excludes expenses incurred for items or services which are not reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis or treatment of illness or injury or to improve the functioning of a malformed body member.

Section 1833(e) prohibits Medicare payment for any claim which lacks the necessary information to process the claim.

CMS Publications:

CMS Publication 100-04; Medicare Claims Processing Manual, Chapter 13:

    80 Supervision and Interpretation (S & I) Codes and Interventional Radiology

CMS Transmittal No. 423, Publication 100-04, Medicare Claims Processing Manual, Change Request #3632, January 6, 2005. Update of the Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment, includes Kyphoplasty.

Coverage Guidance

Coverage Indications, Limitations, and/or Medical Necessity

PVA (percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) or kyphoplasty (PKP) is covered in patients with osteoporotic VCF when BOTH the following:

  1. Inclusion criteria (ALL are required):
    1. Acute (< 6 weeks) or subacute (6-12 weeks) osteoporotic VCF (T1 – L5), based on symptom onset, and documented by advanced imaging (bone marrow edema on MRI or bone-scan/SPECT/CT uptake) (1-3,10,25,27)
    2. Symptomatic (ONE):
      1. Hospitalized with severe pain (Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) or Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain score ≥ 8) (4-7)
      2. Non-hospitalized with moderate to severe pain (NRS or VAS ≥5) despite optimal non-surgical management (NSM) (10) (ONE):
        1. Worsening pain
        2. Stable to improved pain (but NRS or VAS still ≥5) (with ≥ 2 of the following):
          1. Progression of vertebral body height loss
          2. > 25% vertebral body height reduction
          3. Kyphotic deformity
          4. Severe impact of VCF on daily functioning (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ) >17
    3. Continuum of care (10) (Both are required)
      1. All patients presenting with VCF should be referred for evaluation of BMD and osteoporosis education for subsequent treatment as indicated.
      2. All patients with VCF should be instructed to take part in an osteoporosis prevention/treatment program.
  2. Exclusion criteria (2,5,8-10) (Can have NONE of the following):

    1. Absolute contraindication
      1. Current back pain is not primarily due to the identified acute or subacute VCF(s).
      2. Osteomyelitis, discitis or active systemic or surgical site infection
      3. Pregnancy
    2. Relative contraindication
      1. Greater than three vertebral fractures per procedure
      2. Allergy to bone cement or opacification agents
      3. Uncorrected coagulopathy
      4. Spinal instability
      5. Myelopathy from the fracture
      6. Neurologic deficit
      7. Neural impingement
      8. Fracture retropulsion/canal compromise

Vertebral augmentation and Kyphoplasty for vertebral compression fractures with intractable spinal pain secondary not relieved with medical therapy will be covered for osteolytic vertebral metastatic disease or myeloma involving a vertebral body.

Summary of Evidence

Osteoporotic Compression Fractures

Osteoporosis (and low bone mass) affects 50 percent of people over 50 years of age, or over 50 million people in the United States. Its primary impact, fractures (also called fragility or low-trauma fractures), occurs secondary to normal activity (e.g., bending, coughing, lifting, fall from a standing height), and eventually occurs in 50% of women and 20% of men. VCFs constitute one-quarter of osteoporotic fractures (6), often at the midthoracic (T7-T8) and thoracolumbar junction (T12-L1). They may cause significant acute and chronic pain, leading to complications of impaired mobility comparable to a hip fracture (pneumonia, loss of bone and muscle mass, incidental falls, deep venous thrombosis, depression, and isolation) (10). Medicare claims data shows a 85% 10 year mortality following a VCF diagnosis (11). Under-diagnosis and under-treatment may exacerbate morbidity and mortality (10).

Treatment options for symptomatic osteoporotic VCF range from NSM (anti-osteoporosis therapy, analgesics, limited activity/bed rest, back brace, physical therapy) to PVA (PVP and PKP). PVP involves the percutaneous injection of bone cement under image guidance into the VCF. PKP adds balloon tamponade within the fractured vertebral body to create a low-pressure cavity prior to cement injection. Both treatments aimed to immobilize the fracture, reduce pain, and improve alignment.

Successful small European series introduced PVP into the United States in 1993; by 2007 encouraging preliminary observational data led to medical society endorsement and clinical acceptance in painful osteoporotic VCFs refractory to medical management. Subsequent early open-label randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including the Vertebroplasty for Painful Chronic Osteoporotic Vertebral Fractures (VERTOS) trial (21), the Fracture Reduction Evaluation (FREE) trial (22, 23), VERTOS II (14), and others, found a benefit of vertebral augmentation over non-surgical management.

VERTOS II was a multicenter RCT that compared PVP and NSM of acute (< 6 weeks) osteoporotic VCF in patients with moderate to severe pain (VAS ≥ 5) (14). Among 202 patients, the primary endpoint of pain relief at one month and one year was greater after PVP (-5.2/-5.7) than after NSM (-2.7/-3.7) (p < 0.001). Secondary outcomes, including RDQ and Quality of Life Questionnaire of the European Foundation for Osteoporosis (QUALEFFO), were similarly improved. The main limitation in the VERTOS II trial was the lack of blinding. Subsequent analysis of the medical cohort showed that 60% achieved sufficient (VAS ≤ 3) pain relief, most within 3 months (15). The authors acknowledged that despite the VERTOS II results, “clinicians still do not know how to best treat their patients,” but conclude that, pending further RCTs, PVP may be justified in patients with insufficient pain relief after 3 months of conservative treatment (15).

The lack of blinding made the early open-label RCTs, vulnerable to placebo effect. However, in 2009, two high profile, methodologically controversial (e.g., non-rigorous patient selection) double-blinded, RCTs found no benefit of PVP over a “sham” procedure (pedicle periosteal bupivacaine injection) (12,13). Ever since, there has been a lack of consensus on the appropriate management of osteoporotic VCF, particularly the role of PVA (6,10). Medicare claims data shows that among over 2 million VCF patients, PVA was performed in 20% in 2005, peaked at 24% in 2007-2008, and declined to 14% in 2014, a 42% decrease (11). Lower PVA utilization was associated with a 4% increase in propensity-adjusted mortality risk (p < 0.001). A secondary analysis gave a number needed to treat (NNT) at one year to save a life of 22.8 and 14.8 for vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty, respectively (26). Both studies noted the potential for selection bias despite propensity scoring. Subsequent major RCTs, described below, have attempted to address the perceived shortcomings of these two negative studies (primarily more stringent selection criteria and choice of control).

The Vertebroplasty for Acute Painful Osteoporotic Fractures (VAPOUR) double-blinded RCT was designed to compare acute fracture (< 6 weeks) PVP with a sham procedure (subcutaneous, not periosteal, infiltration) for patients with severe pain (NRS ≥ 7) (5). Among 120 randomized patients, the primary endpoint (NRS score < 4 by 14 days) was achieved in 44% and 21% of PVP and sham patients, respectively (p = 0.011), and durable to 6 months. Mean height loss at 6 months was 36% greater in the control group (63% vs. 27%). Hospital inpatients constituted 57% of study patients; among this group, median length of stay was reduced by 5.5 days in the PVP group. In addition to a focus on the acute, severely painful VCF, this study also concentrated on delivering greater cement volumes than prior studies. The authors conclude that PVP is superior to true placebo control of severe pain in VCFs of less than 6 weeks.

VERTOS IV used the same inclusion criteria as VERTOS II, but was a double-blinded comparison of PVP with a sham procedure (pedicle periosteal infiltration) (7). Among the 180 randomized patients, although the reduction in VAS score was clinically (> 1.5 points) and statistically significant up to 12 months in both groups (5.00 at 12 months in the PVP group vs. 4.75 in the sham group), reductions in VAS scores did not differ between groups (p = 0.48). The authors conclude, “the results suggest that periosteal infiltration alone in the early phase provides enough pain relief with no need for additional cementation.” They recommend the “pragmatic approach” of first use of “periosteal infiltration during natural healing” and “cementation only in a selected subgroup of patients with insufficient pain relief after this early phase.” They also highlight a subgroup that may warrant earlier PVP per the VAPOUR trial (hospital inpatients with more comorbidity and severe pain).

The 2018 multicenter, prospective, uncontrolled, EVOLVE study of 354 Medicare-age patients with acute or subacute (≤ 4 mo.) painful (NRS ≥ 7) VCF (all but 8 osteoporotic), found statistical improvement in NRS, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Short Form-36 Questionnaire Physical Component Summary (SF-36v2 PCS), and EuroQol-5-Domain (EQ-SD) out to 12 months (24). The authors conclude that “kyphoplasty is a safe, effective, and durable procedure for treating patients with painful VCF due to osteoporosis.”

Non-Osteoporotic Fractures

Malignant Fractures

Skeletal lytic lesions leading to bone pain are frequent in myeloma patients and can be present in other malignancies. Analgesic and analgesic adjuvants, in conjunction with chemotherapy, may control the pain from lytic lesions(30). In refractory or non-responsive pain, PVA has been utilized as a treatment option since the early 2000’s(31-33). A 2016 systematic review by the Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series reported the role of PVA for cancer-related VCF(34). They reviewed 111 clinical reports with 4,235 patients, including 14 systematic reviews and six RCTs evaluating the effectiveness of vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty for patients with mixed primary spinal metastatic cancers, multiple myeloma, or hemangiomas. Due to the high heterogeneity of the clinical reports, the authors performed a narrative synthesis. They found the mean pain intensity scores, analgesia scores, and pain-related disability scores were significantly reduced after PVA. Asymptomatic cement leakage was common, but major adverse events were rare. This was consistent with the findings reported in an International, randomized, non-blinded trial called the Cancer Patient Fracture Evaluation (CAFÉ) study reported on 134 patients with cancer related painful VB fractures. Patients were randomized to kyphoplasty (n=70) or non-surgical management (n=64). The mean RDQ score in the kyphoplasty group changed from 17·6 at baseline to 9·1 at one month (mean change -8·3 points, 95% CI -6·4 to -10·2; p<0·0001), and the control group changed from 18·2 to 18·0 (mean change 0·1 points; 95% CI -0·8 to 1·0; p=0·83). At one month, the kyphoplasty treatment effect for RDQ was -8·4 points (95% CI -7·6 to -9·2; p<0·0001). In an intention-to-treat analysis, kyphoplasty resulted in a decrease in a back-specific disability measurement in one month. The kyphoplasty group reported a significantly lower percentage of patients requiring walking aids (46 versus 25 percent), bracing (22 versus 2 percent), bed rest (46 versus 23 percent), and medications of any kind (82 versus 52 percent). Limitations included potential bias and small numbers; however, there were not significant adverse outcomes (35).

For malignant PVC guidelines established by the International Society of Interventional Radiology, Standards of Practice Committee recommends referral and use of PVA for:

  • For a patient rendered non-ambulatory as a result of pain from a weakened or fractured vertebral body, pain persisting at a level that prevents ambulation despite 24 hours of analgesic therapy;
  • For a patient with sufficient pain from a weakened or fractured vertebral body that physical therapy is intolerable, pain persisting at that level despite 24 hours of analgesic therapy; or
  • For any patient with a weakened or fractured vertebral body, unacceptable side effects such excessive sedation, confusion, or constipation as a result of the analgesic therapy necessary to reduce pain to a tolerable level(36).

The International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) on the use of cement augmentation with percutaneous vertebroplasty and percutaneous kyphoplasty for the treatment of vertebral compression fractures in multiple myeloma (MM) concludes the use of cement augmentation is an effective way to stabilize the spinal column and indicates balloon kyphoplasty (BKP) and percutaneous vertebroplasty (PV) allows the majority of patients the ability to return to a near-normal level of function in a relatively short period by significantly reducing back pain and decreasing the use of pain relief. Further, the consensus statement from the IMWG states, “multiple myeloma patients with significant pain at a fracture site should be offered a balloon kyphoplasty or percutaneous vertebroplasty procedure, and the procedure should be performed within 4-8 weeks unless there are medical contraindications”(37).The American College of Radiology ACR Appropriate Criteria for Management of VCFs considers PVA “Usually Appropriate” action for a pathological spinal fracture with severe and worsening pain(38).

Analysis of Evidence (Rationale for Determination)

Whether or when to use PVA for osteoporotic VCF has been very controversial since publication of the two negative 2009 RCTs. At the time, some national organizations withdrew (Australia Medical Services Advisory Committee) (6) or severely curbed (American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons) (16) endorsement. Others continued recommending PVA in select patients. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends PVA in patients “who have severe ongoing pain after a recent, unhealed vertebral fracture despite optimal pain management and in whom the pain has been confirmed to be at the level of the fracture by physical examination and imaging” (4). In a 2014 consensus statement, the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR), American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS), Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS), American College of Radiology (ACR), American Society of Neuroradiology (ASNR), American Society of Spin Radiology (ASSR), Canadian Interventional Radiology Association (CIRA), and the Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery (SNIS) considered PVA a proven medically appropriate therapy for treatment of painful VCFs refractory to brief (24 hrs.) nonoperative medical therapy (1). The 2017 Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiologic Society of Europe (CIRSE) guideline notes that while the evidence for PVP has been conflicting, based on recent data “it seems clear that PVP offers significant pain reduction in patients with acute VCFs after short (<3 wks.) failed medical therapy (2).

A 2018 Cochrane review of 21 trials of PVA for osteoporotic VCF “does not support a role for vertebroplasty for treating acute or subacute osteoporotic vertebral fractures in routine practice (17),” though its methodology has been criticized (25). A 2019 systematic review and meta-analysis by the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) Task Force concluded: “Vertebroplasty does not work to relieve pain from the fracture, and kyphoplasty should generally only be done in the context of a placebo-controlled clinical trial” (20). Based on the uncertainty of benefit, citing both the recent Cochrane analysis and the VERTOS IV results, UpToDate recommends reserving PVA “for patients with incapacitating pain from acute and subacute VCFs who are unable to taper parenteral opioids or transition to oral opioids within seven days of admission or have intolerable side effects from opioid therapy” (8).

The benefit of PVA is supported by the significantly higher 5-year mortality risk for VCF in Medicare patients after a decline in utilization (11). In a recent systematic review of evidence-based guidelines for the management of osteoporotic VCF, three of four guidelines recommended PVA (19). In 2018, a multispecialty expert panel (orthopedic and neurosurgeons, interventional [neuro] radiologists and pain specialists), endorsed vertebral augmentation for select patients, in a clinical care pathway (developed using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method), based on seven variables (pain duration and evolution, acute fracture by advanced imaging, kyphotic deformity, degree and progression of vertebral height loss, and impact on daily functioning) (10). Whether subgroups of patients might benefit more from vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty, requires further study (6). A review of the 14 published RCTs that examined the role of VA in osteoporotic VCF concluded: “While the RCT data are conflicting, there are patients with acute fractures causing significant pain and disability who can derive benefit with respect to improvement in pain outcomes, reduction in narcotic usage and reduced length of hospital stay” (27). In a meta-analysis of 16 studies with mortality as an outcome, eight reported mortality benefit in VA, seven reported no benefit, and one reported mixed results (28). The analysis found that VA provided a 22% mortality benefit over NSM at 10 years. However, the authors note the potential for “a strong selection bias in the selection of healthier patients for VA that was not captured by the analysis.” They conclude that VA “remains a controversial treatment” and “should be offered in carefully selected patients.”

In summary, the premise of weight-bearing fracture immobilization, to limit pain and deformity, has prima facie validity on first principles. Superimposed is the recent trend toward immediate, focused, surgical immobilization, and away from prolonged, general immobilization (e.g., casting, bracing, bedrest) and prolonged systemic pain management (e.g., opioid analgesics), particularly in the elderly. The preponderance of evidence (studies, national and society guidelines, systematic reviews, multispecialty panel clinical care pathway, and Medicare claims data) favors consideration of early PVA in select patients (moderate to severe and disabling pain due to acute osteoporotic VCF confirmed by physical examination and advanced imaging findings). However, in addition to timely fracture treatment, also warranted is increased emphasis on ensuring the continuum of care, and preventing medical undertreatment of the overarching systemic disease, of which VCF is a symptom (29).

Malignant Compression Fractures

Percutaneous vertebroplasty (PV) and balloon kyphoplasty (BKP) procedures have played a major role in treating painful malignant compression fractures refractory to conservative care. Vertebroplasty procedures have been shown to provide rapid pain control and improved overall quality of life. After careful review of the literature, vertebral augmentation for malignant compression fractures is a reasonable and necessary procedure providing rapid pain control with a decrease in the need for analgesics, improvement in pain-related disability and physical performance, and improved vertebral stability. The literature reviewed supports the clinical utility and clinical validity and is relevant to the Medicare population.

Proposed Process Information

Synopsis of Changes
Changes Fields Changed
Associated Information
Sources of Information
Open Meetings
Meeting Date Meeting States Meeting Information
Contractor Advisory Committee (CAC) Meetings
Meeting Date Meeting States Meeting Information
MAC Meeting Information URLs
Proposed LCD Posting Date
Comment Period Start Date
Comment Period End Date
Reason for Proposed LCD
Requestor Information
This request was MAC initiated.
Requestor Name Requestor Letter
View Letter
Contact for Comments on Proposed LCD

Coding Information

Bill Type Codes

Code Description

Revenue Codes

Code Description


Group 1

Group 1 Paragraph


Group 1 Codes



ICD-10-CM Codes that Support Medical Necessity

Group 1

Group 1 Paragraph:


Group 1 Codes:



ICD-10-CM Codes that DO NOT Support Medical Necessity

Group 1

Group 1 Paragraph:


Group 1 Codes:



Additional ICD-10 Information

General Information

Associated Information

Documentation Requirements:

The patient's medical record must contain documentation that fully supports the medical necessity for services included within this LCD. (See "Indications and Limitations of Coverage.") This documentation includes, but is not limited to, relevant medical history, physical examination, and results of pertinent diagnostic tests or procedures.

Sources of Information
  1. Barr JD, Jensen ME, Hirsch JA, et al. Position statement on percutaneous vertebral augmentation: a consensus statement developed by the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR), American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) and the Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS), American College of Radiology (ACR), American Society of Neuroradiology (ASNR), American Society of Spine Radiology (ASSR), Canadian Interventional Radiology Association (CIRA), and the Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery (SNIS). J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2014;25(2):171-181.
  2. Tsoumakidou G, Too CW, Koch G, et al. CIRSE Guidelines on Percutaneous Vertebral Augmentation. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2017;40(3):331-342.
  3. McConnell CT, Jr., Wippold FJ, 2nd, Ray CE, Jr., et al. ACR appropriateness criteria management of vertebral compression fractures. J Am Coll Radiol. 2014;11(8):757-763.
  4. NICE 2013 Vertebral Augmentation Guidelines. 
  5. Clark W, Bird P, Gonski P, et al. Safety and efficacy of vertebroplasty for acute painful osteoporotic fractures (VAPOUR): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2016;388(10052):1408-1416.
  6. Chandra RV, Maingard J, Asadi H, et al. Vertebroplasty and Kyphoplasty for Osteoporotic Vertebral Fractures: What Are the Latest Data? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2018;39(5):798-806.
  7. Firanescu CE, de Vries J, Lodder P, et al. Vertebroplasty versus sham procedure for painful acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (VERTOS IV): randomised sham controlled clinical trial. BMJ. 2018;361:k1551.
  8. UpToDate- Osteoporotic thoracolumbar vertebral compression fractures: Clinical manifestations and treatment. 2018.
  9. Chandra RV, Meyers PM, Hirsch JA, et al. Vertebral augmentation: report of the Standards and Guidelines Committee of the Society of NeuroInterventional Surgery. J Neurointerv Surg. 2014;6(1):7-15.
  10. Hirsch JA, Beall DP, Chambers MR, et al. Management of vertebral fragility fractures: A clinical care pathway developed by a multispecialty panel using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. Spine J. 2018.
  11. Ong KL, Beall DP, Frohbergh M, Lau E, Hirsch JA. Were VCF patients at higher risk of mortality following the 2009 publication of the vertebroplasty "sham" trials? Osteoporos Int. 2018;29(2):375-383.
  12. Buchbinder R, Osborne RH, Ebeling PR, et al. A randomized trial of vertebroplasty for painful osteoporotic vertebral fractures. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(6):557-568.
  13. Kallmes DF, Comstock BA, Heagerty PJ, et al. A randomized trial of vertebroplasty for osteoporotic spinal fractures. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(6):569-579.
  14. Klazen CA, Lohle PN, de Vries J, et al. Vertebroplasty versus conservative treatment in acute osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (Vertos II): an open-label randomised trial. Lancet. 2010;376(9746):1085-1092.
  15. Venmans A, Klazen CA, Lohle PN, Mali WP, van Rooij WJ. Natural history of pain in patients with conservatively treated osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures: results from VERTOS II. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2012;33(3):519-521.
  16. McGuire R. AAOS Clinical Practice Guideline: the Treatment of Symptomatic Osteoporotic Spinal Compression Fractures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2011;19(3):183-184.
  17. Buchbinder R, Johnston RV, Rischin KJ, et al. Percutaneous vertebroplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;4:CD006349.
  18. Anselmetti GC, Bernard J, Blattert T, et al. Criteria for the appropriate treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. Pain Physician. 2013;16(5):E519-530.
  19. Parreira PCS, Maher CG, Megale RZ, March L, Ferreira ML. An overview of clinical guidelines for the management of vertebral compression fracture: a systematic review. Spine J. 2017;17(12):1932-1938.
  20. Ebeling PR, Akesson K, Bauer DC, et al. The Efficacy and Safety of Vertebral Augmentation: A Second ASBMR Task Force Report. J Bone Miner Res. 2019;34(1):3-21.
  21. Voormolen MH, Mali WP, Lohle PN, et al. Percutaneous vertebroplasty compared with optimal pain medication treatment: short-term clinical outcome of patients with subacute or chronic painful osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. The VERTOS study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2007;28(3):555-560.
  22. Wardlaw D, Cummings SR, Van Meirhaeghe J, et al. Efficacy and safety of balloon kyphoplasty compared with non-surgical care for vertebral compression fracture (FREE): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2009;373(9668):1016-1024.
  23. Boonen S, Van Meirhaeghe J, Bastian L, et al. Balloon kyphoplasty for the treatment of acute vertebral compression fractures: 2-year results from a randomized trial. J Bone Miner Res. 2011;26(7):1627-1637.
  24. Beall DP, Chambers MR, Thomas S, et al. Prospective and Multicenter Evaluation of Outcomes for Quality of Life and Activities of Daily Living for Balloon Kyphoplasty in the Treatment of Vertebral Compression Fractures: The EVOLVE Trial. Neurosurgery. 2018.
  25. Clark W, Bird P, Diamond T, Gonski P, Gebski V. Cochrane vertebroplasty review misrepresented evidence for vertebroplasty with early intervention in severely affected patients. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2019.
  26. Hirsch JA, Chandra RV, Carter NS, Beall D, Frohbergh M, Ong K. Number Needed to Treat with Vertebral Augmentation to Save a Life. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2019
  27. De Leacy R, Chandra RV, Barr JD, et al. The evidentiary basis of vertebral augmentation: a 2019 update. J Neurointerv Surg. 2020
  28. Hinde K, Maingard J, Hirsch JA, Phan K, Asadi H, Chandra RV. Mortality Outcomes of Vertebral Augmentation (Vertebroplasty and/or Balloon Kyphoplasty) for Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. 2020:191294.
  29. Conley RB, Adib G, Adler RA, et al. Secondary Fracture Prevention: Consensus Clinical Recommendations from a Multistakeholder Coalition. J Bone Miner Res. 2020;35(1):36-52.
  30. Rajkumar, SV. Multiple myeloma: Treatment of complications. Up To Date 2019.
  31. Dudeney S, Lieberman IH, Reinhardt MK, Hussein M. Kyphoplasty in the treatment of osteolytic vertebral compression fractures as a result of multiple myeloma. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20:2382.
  32. Fourney DR, Schomer DF, Nader R, et al. Percutaneous vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty for painful vertebral body fractures in cancer patients. J Neurosurg 2003; 98:21.
  33. Hentschel SJ, Burton AW, Fourney DR, et al. Percutaneous vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty performed at a cancer center: refuting proposed contraindications. J Neurosurg Spine 2005; 2:436.
  34. Health Quality Ontario. Vertebral Augmentation Involving Vertebroplasty or Kyphoplasty for Cancer-Related Vertebral Compression Fractures: A Systematic Review. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2016;16(11):1-202. Published 2016 May 1.
  35. Berenson J, Pflugmacher R, Jarzem P, et al. Balloon kyphoplasty versus non-surgical fracture management for treatment of painful vertebral body compression fractures in patients with cancer: a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2011; 12:225.
  36. Baerlocher MO, Saad WE, Dariushnia S, Barr JD, McGraw JK, Nikolic B. Quality improvement guidelines for percutaneous vertebroplasty. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2014;25(2):165-70.
  37. Kyriakou C, Molloy S, Vrionis F, et al. The role of cement augmentation with percutaneous vertebroplasty and balloon kyphoplasty for the treatment of vertebral compression fractures in multiple myeloma: a consensus statement from the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG). Blood Cancer J. 2019;9(3):27.
  38. American College of Radiology (ACR): Appropriateness Criteria on management of vertebral compression fractures (2018).

Revision History Information

Revision History Date Revision History Number Revision History Explanation Reasons for Change
10/06/2022 R6


Revision Effective: 10/06/2022
Revision Explanation: Annual review, no changes.

  • Other (Annual Review)
03/17/2022 R5

R6                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Revision Effective: 03/17/2022
Revision Explanation: R5 history actually included changes within the Bibliography section for reference numbers: 4, 8, 30, and 38. Also removed all remaining URLs throughout the Bibliography section. 

  • Provider Education/Guidance
03/17/2022 R4


Revision Effective: 03/17/2022
Revision Explanation: Annual review, no changes were made.

  • Provider Education/Guidance
10/07/2021 R3

R4                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Revision Effective: 10/07/2021
Revision Explanation: Annual review, no changes were made.

  • Other (Annual Review)
04/25/2021 R2


Revision Effective: 04/25/2021
Revision Explanation: Policy take to open meeting 06/23/2020 is being released and will become effective 04/25/2021 after the notice period.


  • Provider Education/Guidance
12/07/2020 R1


Revision Effective: 12/07/2020
Revision Explanation: Changes made to the title of the policy, updated bibliography, and changes to the coverage criteria


Revision Effective: N/A
Revision Explanation: Annual review, no changes


  • Provider Education/Guidance

Associated Documents

Related National Coverage Documents
Public Versions
Updated On Effective Dates Status
09/29/2023 10/05/2023 - N/A Currently in Effect View
09/26/2022 10/06/2022 - 10/04/2023 Superseded You are here
Some older versions have been archived. Please visit the MCD Archive Site to retrieve them.


  • Compression fracture
  • Vertebral fracture
  • Fracture spine

Read the LCD Disclaimer