Clinical UM Guideline
|Subject:||Trigger Point Injections|
|Guideline #:||CG-SURG-17||Current Effective Date:||07/15/2014|
|Status:||Reviewed||Last Review Date:||05/15/2014|
Trigger points are small, circumscribed, hyperirritable foci in muscles, often found within a firm or taut band of skeletal muscle. Frequently affected sites include the trapezius, supraspinatus, infraspinatus, teres major, lumbar paraspinals, gluteus and pectoralis muscles. The diagnosis is clinical and depends upon the results of a detailed history and a thorough directed exam. There is no laboratory or imaging test to establish the diagnosis of trigger point pain.
Myofascial pain syndrome is a regional painful muscle condition with a relationship between a specific trigger point and its associated pain region. When myofascial pain syndrome is suspected, injections of local anesthetics with or without steroid into the identified trigger points have been used for myofascial pain management for many years within the medical community. Dry needling of a trigger point is a technique for pain treatment in which the pain site is stimulated by insertion of a needle without injection of medication.
Not Medically Necessary:
Trigger point injections are considered not medically necessary in the presence of:
"Dry needling" trigger point stimulation is considered not medically necessary.
The following codes for treatments and procedures applicable to this guideline are included below for informational purposes. Inclusion or exclusion of a procedure, diagnosis or device code(s) does not constitute or imply member coverage or provider reimbursement policy. Please refer to the member's contract benefits in effect at the time of service to determine coverage or non-coverage of these services as it applies to an individual member.
|20552||Injection(s); single or multiple trigger point(s), 1 or 2 muscle(s)|
|20553||Injection(s); single or multiple trigger point(s), 3 or more muscle(s)|
|97139||Unlisted therapeutic procedure [when specified as dry needling]|
|ICD-9 Diagnosis||[For dates of service prior to 10/01/2015]|
|ICD-10 Diagnosis||[For dates of service on or after 10/01/2015]|
Although not supported by rigorous randomized controlled trials (Cummings 2001), trigger point injections with a local anesthetic with or without a steroid are considered an accepted therapy for pain associated with myofascial pain syndrome or fibromyalgia.
In a Cochrane review, Peloso and colleagues (2011) examined the effects of medication and injections on primary outcomes (e.g. pain) for adults with mechanical neck disorders and whiplash. In their data analysis, they found that lidocaine injection into myofascial trigger points appears effective in two trials.
In another Cochrane review, Staal and colleagues (2011) performed a data analysis to determine if injection therapy is more effective than placebo or other treatments for patients with subacute or chronic low-back pain. Based on these results, the review authors concluded that there is no strong evidence for or against the use of any type of injection therapy for individuals with subacute or chronic low-back pain.
Kim and colleagues (2012) evaluated the therapeutic effectiveness of trigger point injections into the muscles around the groin in males with clinically diagnosed chronic prostatitis (CP) and chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CPPS). In addition, the researchers attempted to determine which muscle was the cause of groin pain by using ultrasound guidance during the injection. Twenty-one (21) participants ranging in ages from 20 to 61 years met the inclusion criteria. The NIH-CPSI score and the VAS were the main outcome measurements. Trigger point injections were performed in all affected muscles at 1-week intervals. Additional injections were not considered if the participants were satisfied with the reduction in discomfort or the severity of pain, or if the individual did not want another injection for other reasons. No other therapies (such as physical therapy or medications) were allowed during the study period. However, self-exercise and behavior correction were allowed to avoid early recurrence of pain after trigger point injections. Of the 21 participants, all completed the treatment schedule and attended a follow-up. Fourteen participants (66.7%) received one trigger point injection, six participants (28.6%) received two injections at an interval of 1 week, and one subject (4.7%) received a total of three injections at the same interval. Nineteen of the 21 participants reported improvement of symptoms enough to not need further treatment, while 2 subjects did not complete the injection treatment for personal reasons. With all of the subjects, the VAS and NIH-CPSI scores decreased compared with the baseline scores. The participants did not report any complications related to the injections or serious adverse events attributable to the treatment. The authors concluded that US-guided trigger point injections of the iliopsoas, hip adductor, and abdominal muscles are safe and effective for CP/CPPS groin pain which is believed to originate from muscles. The iliopsoas muscle was affected in all of the participants in this study. The authors acknowledged that limitations of this study include its small size and short follow-up time.
There is little evidence to support dry needling. A Cochrane assessment of dry needling for lower back pain found that while dry-needling may be a useful adjunct to other therapies, most of the limited number of studies available were of low methodological quality and small sample size (Furlan, 2000).
Karakurum and colleagues (2001) studied dry needling for tension type headaches (TTH). Fifteen participants with TTH received intramuscular dry needle insertions into six designated trigger points, while fifteen controls received sham dry needle subcutaneous insertions. Results showed significant improvement of mean headache indices after treatment, both in the treatment group and in the placebo group, but the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant. In the treatment group, neck tenderness and range of motion improved, while there was no significant improvement in the sham placebo group. However, the number of participants treated was too small for this difference to be statistically significant. The authors concluded that more and larger controlled, comparative trials were needed to show whether the dry-needle technique is effective in the treatment of TTH.
Irnich and colleagues (2002) compared the effects of dry needling and acupuncture at distant points in chronic neck pain using a randomized, double-blind, sham controlled cross-over trial. Thirty-six participants were included in the prospective trial. Although an assessment of change revealed acupuncture was superior to both sham and dry needling, there was no difference between dry needling and sham control. (P=0.8).
Kamanlia and colleagues (2005) reported a prospective single blind study comparing trigger point injection for myofascial pain syndrome using lidocaine injection, botulinum toxin type A (BTX-A) injection and dry needling. Twenty-nine participants were randomized to three groups of near equal size. A variety of outcome measures were used including pain scores, trigger point pain pressure threshold (PPT), visual analog scales for pain (VAS), the Hamilton depression score and quality of life (QOL) assessments using the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP). While pain pressure thresholds and pain scores improved in all three groups, the pain pressure threshold values were significantly higher in the lidocaine group than in the dry needle group. VAS did not change in the dry needle group, but did decrease in the lidocaine injection and BTX-A injected groups. QOL scores by NHP improved in the lidocaine and BTX-A groups but not in the dry needle group. The limitations of this study include its small size and the lack of an untreated or sham control group.
In 2009, Tough and colleagues published a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials addressing dry needling in the management of myofascial trigger point pain. A meta-analysis was performed on four studies of 134 participants that included a placebo control. This analysis concluded that dry needling was not superior to placebo. Other randomized studies reported conflicting findings. The authors concluded the limited sample size and poor quality of these studies highlights and supports the need for large scale, good quality placebo controlled trials in this area.
Peer Reviewed Publications:
Government Agency, Medical Society, and Other Authoritative Publications:
|Reviewed||05/15/2014||Medical Policy & Technology Assessment Committee (MPTAC) review. Updated References section.|
|Reviewed||05/09/2013||MPTAC review. Updated Discussion/General Information and References sections.|
|Reviewed||05/10/2012||MPTAC review. Discussion and References updated.|
|Reviewed||05/19/2011||MPTAC review. References and Coding updated.|
|Reviewed||05/13/2010||MPTAC review. References updated.|
|Reviewed||05/21/2009||MPTAC review. Discussion and references updated. Place of service removed.|
|Reviewed||05/15/2008||MPTAC review. References updated.|
|Revised||05/17/2007||MPTAC review. Guideline revised to address dry needling. Background, coding, and references updated.|
|Reviewed||12/07/2006||MPTAC review. References updated.|
|Revised||12/01/2005||MPTAC review. Revision based on Pre-merger Anthem and Pre-merger WellPoint Harmonization.|
|Pre-Merger Organizations||Last Review Date||Document Number||Title|
|WellPoint Health Networks, Inc.||12/02/2004||Guideline||Regional Anesthesia/Pain Management for Chronic Neck, Back and Myofascial Pain|