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.

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 11/28/2021
Revision Effective Date
For services performed on or after 07/20/2023
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

Title XVIII of the Social Security Act, §1862(a)(1)(A) allows coverage and payment for only those services that are considered to be reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis or treatment of illness or injury or to improve the functioning of a malformed body member.

42 CFR §410.32(a) Ordering diagnostic tests

42 CFR §411.15(k)(1) Particular services excluded from coverage

Coverage Guidance

Coverage Indications, Limitations, and/or Medical Necessity

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

1. Inclusion criteria (ALL are required): 

  1. Acute (< 6 weeks) or subacute (6-12 weeks) osteoporotic VCF (T1 – L5) by recent (within 30 days) advanced imaging (bone marrow edema on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or bone-scan/single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)/computed tomography (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)

*Consider including pedicle periosteal infiltration7

c. Continuum of care10 (BOTH):

    1. All patients presenting with VCF should be referred for evaluation of bone mineral density (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 criteria2,5,8-10 (Can have NONE of the following):

a. 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

b. Relative contraindication:

    1. Allergy to bone cement or opacification agents
    2. Uncorrected coagulopathy
    3. Spinal instability
    4. Myelopathy from the fracture
    5. Neurologic deficit
    6. Neural impingement
    7. Fracture retropulsion/canal compromise
    8. Greater than 3 vertebral fractures

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

Summary of Evidence

Osteoporosis (and low bone mass) affects 50% 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 Vertebral augmentation provides a significant mortality benefit over nonsurgical management with a low number needed to treat (NNT).

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 aim 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 NSM.

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 1 month and 1 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, 2 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 NNT at 1 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 2 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 months) 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.”

Hirsch, et al., is a claims-based analysis of national registries and insurance datasets that indicates a significant mortality benefit for patients with VCFs who receive vertebral augmentation. Both vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty modalities conferred a prominent mortality benefit over NSM in the analysis of the U.S. Medicare registry, with a low NNT. The calculations based on this data base resulted in a low NNT to save 1 life at 1 year and at 5 years. This analysis of >2,000,000 patients with VCF revealed that only 15 patients need to be treated to save 1 life at 1 year. This large dataset analysis suggests that vertebral augmentation provides a significant mortality benefit over NSM with a low NNT.

Multi-Jurisdictional Contractor Advisory Committee (CAC) Meeting

After review of highly graded evidence-based literature from the years 2004 -2018, the opinions amongst the CAC members and the Subject Matter Experts (SME) varied on many of the proposed questions regarding the strength of evidence for the treatment of osteoporotic VCFs with vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty. Multiple pieces of literature were discussed to determine if osteoporotic VCFs receiving intervention treatment during the acute or subacute timeframes were supported. Also discussed were if current literature and quality of evidence addressed an acute, subacute or chronic fracture time frame, and if highly graded evidence existed for supporting conservative, non-interventional treatment. Topics within the discussion reviewed strength of evidence regarding pain relief, overall opioid usage, quality of life, mobility as well as mortality risk. CAC members and SMEs discussed the need for further research trials to strengthen existing data as others felt the benefits of these procedures have been proven in evidence-based literature from trials that have already been performed.

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 2000s.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 6 RCTs evaluating the effectiveness of vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty for patients with mixed primary spinal metastatic cancers, multiple myeloma (MM), 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 (CAFE) study reported on 134 patients with cancer-related painful vertebral body fractures. Patients were randomized to kyphoplasty (n = 70) or NSM (n = 64). The mean RDQ score in the kyphoplasty group changed from 17.6 at baseline to 9.1 at 1 month (mean change -8.3 points, 95% confidence interval [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 1 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 1 month. The kyphoplasty group reported a significantly lower percentage of patients requiring walking aids (46% vs. 25%), bracing (22% vs. 2%), bed rest (46% vs. 23%), and medications of any kind (82% vs. 52%). 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 PVP and PKP for the treatment of VCFs in MM concludes the use of cement augmentation is an effective way to stabilize the spinal column and indicates balloon kyphoplasty (BKP) and PVP 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 BKP 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 2 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), ACR, American Society of Neuroradiology (ASNR), American Society of Spine 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 hours) 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, 3 of 4 guidelines recommended PVA.19 In 2018, a multispecialty expert panel (orthopedic and neurosurgeons, interventional [neuro] radiologists and pain specialists), endorsed vertebral augmentation (VA) for select patients, in a clinical care pathway (developed using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method), based on 7 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, 8 reported mortality benefit in VA, 7 reported no benefit, and 1 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

PVP and 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, VA 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


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 II, 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. Percutaneous vertebroplasty and percutaneous balloon kyphoplasty for treating osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. Published April 24, 2013. Accessed 6/13/23.
  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;388:1408-1416.
  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. Rosen HN, Walega DR. Osteoporotic thoracolumbar vertebral compression fractures: Clinical manifestations and treatment. UpToDate. Updated June 2022. Accessed 6/13/23.
  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 NeuroIntervent 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. 2018:2152-2161.
  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 of Systematic Reviews. 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-E530.
  19. Parreira PC, 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. 2019;84(1):169-178.
  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 Evidence-Based Medicine. 2020;25(3):85-89.
  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 NeuroIntervent Surg. 2020;12:442-447.
  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. Radiology. 2020;295(1):96-103.
  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. UpToDate. Published 2019. Accessed 6/13/23.
  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(9):2382-2387.
  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(1 Suppl):21-30.
  33. Hentschel SJ, Burton AW, Fourney DR, Rhines LD, Mendel E. Percutaneous vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty performed at a cancer center: Refuting proposed contraindications. J Neurosurg Spine. 2005;2(4):436-440.
  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.
  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(3):225-235.
  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):165-170.
  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® management of vertebral compression fractures. Published 2018. Revised 2022. Accessed 6/13/23.

Revision History Information

Revision History Date Revision History Number Revision History Explanation Reasons for Change
07/20/2023 R3

Under Bibliography updated broken hyperlink on reference #30 and changes were made to citations to reflect AMA citation guidelines. Formatting, punctuation, and typographical errors were corrected throughout the LCD. Acronyms were inserted and defined where appropriate throughout the LCD.

  • Provider Education/Guidance
08/21/2022 R2

This LCD is being presented for notice. No changes were made during the comment period.

  • Provider Education/Guidance
11/28/2021 R1

Under Coverage Indications, Limitations and/or Medical Necessity – Exclusion criteria moved the verbiage “Greater than three vertebral fractures” from the Absolute contraindication subheading to the Relative contraindication subheading, as this was a typographical error.

  • Provider Education/Guidance

Associated Documents

Related National Coverage Documents
Public Versions
Updated On Effective Dates Status
07/14/2023 07/20/2023 - N/A Currently in Effect You are here
07/01/2022 08/21/2022 - 07/19/2023 Superseded View
Some older versions have been archived. Please visit the MCD Archive Site to retrieve them.



Read the LCD Disclaimer