Click here for more sample CPC practice exam questions with Full Rationale Answers

Practice Exam

Click here for more sample CPC practice exam questions and answers with full rationale

Practice Exam

CPC Practice Exam and Study Guide Package

Practice Exam

What makes a good CPC Practice Exam? Questions and Answers with Full Rationale

CPC Exam Review Video

Laureen shows you her proprietary “Bubbling and Highlighting Technique”

Download your Free copy of my "Medical Coding From Home Ebook" at the top right corner of this page

Practice Exam

2018 CPC Practice Exam Answer Key 150 Questions With Full Rationale (HCPCS, ICD-9-CM, ICD-10, CPT Codes) Click here for more sample CPC practice exam questions with Full Rationale Answers

Practice Exam

Click here for more sample CPC practice exam questions and answers with full rationale

Prophylactic Appendectomy performed by a separate provider

Help! I can’t find anything anywhere about this situation. It is my understanding that for facility charges, NCCI editing can be overridden when 2 separate providers are performing procedures that normally unbundle to each other. Is this true when one provider performs a procedure like a hysterectomy and then a separate provider performs a prophylactic appendectomy? Normally the appy wouldn’t be paid as it wasn’t medically indicated, but can it be in this case since it was performed by a separate provider?

Thanks in advance.

Medical Billing and Coding Forum

Laparoscopic Appendectomy- Need help with possible additional code(s)

I think the surgeon will be able to get more than 44970. Does anyone see any other codes that can be billed?

Description of Procedure: In the supine position with appropriate monitoring she received general anesthesia and has remained on IV antibiotics. The obese abdomen is widely prepped with DuraPrep and draped. A vertical incision was made in the previous supraumbilical vertical scar, with remarkably thin subcutaneous tissue identifying loose fascia. This is opened, I can palpate adhesions on the right side but none on the left and introduced a 12 mm port with CO2 insufflation and camera introduction. The liver has a somewhat blunted edges and has a regular texture. The stomach is deflated. Pus is evident in the right lower quadrant with obviously inflamed small bowel, omentum adherent to the right lower quadrant. Omental and small bowel adhesions to the infero-umbilical midline and down toward the pelvis. Rotating the camera around the adhesion I find a left suprapubic site and can indent, make a small incision and introduced the 5 mm port under vision. Using grasper and Maryland LigaSure I release the omental adhesions from the anterior abdominal wall, somewhat tediously. I then released the omental adhesions over the ascending colon and find the terminal ileum and inflamed Fat Pad of Treves. The cecum is inflamed, I find the medial tinea in the anterior free tinea and finds inflamed tissue and exudate but no obvious appendix. I then aspirate for cultures and then begin irrigation, freeing the inflamed small bowel and its mesentery from this process retracted to the left, and identifying inflamed fat and inflamed redundant rectum, depressed inferiorly. Then I release the lowest lateral attachments of the cecum and elevate, staying adjacent to the intestine to avoid the inflamed retroperitoneum and course of the right ureter, neither sought nor identified. The exposure of the cecum for definitive dissection now commences, about an hour and 15 minutes of the 2-hour operation was with lysis of adhesions.
*
I then follow the two identified tinea to inflamed tissue which has a tubular texture to it and I am able to elevate, with difficulty from exposure, I am able to release until its apparent attachment to the cecum and I amputate with a tan load tri-stapler. This is collected and submitted to the pathologist but returns as probably inflamed and necrotic fat. Dr. department is kind enough to scrub and into the room and begin separately dissecting the fat pad of Treves to clearly identify the introduction medially of the terminal ileum into the a sending colon. He dissects beneath that to clearly identify the medial posterior cecum and absence of inflamed tissue or abscess. More laterally against the lateral sidewall, a superficial dissection is initiated and I commence release of the lateral cecum more thoroughly and then beneath. We now recognized perhaps a tubular structure plastered against the right side of the lower most posterior cecum. That is gently teased, quite tediously with a pulling technique and find separation and feels apparent it can be separated in its midportion. This looks to be normal appendix and probably represents the tip. With more tedious dissection and separation in the inflamed tissues, to avoid injury to the cecum, this can be finally freed. Now it is apparent that the proximal appendix is congested and purple with a small pinpoint opening that may have represented a perforation. By grasping the inflamed fat, which includes the previous staple line of, what is now recognized as, para-appendiceal inflamed fat, I can elevate and circumferentially dissect more to the origin with the cecum. I now introduced a second 45 mm tan load tri-stapler and amputated against the cecum. This is collected in a new specimen retrieval bag. I now complete irrigation in different positioning, and initially head of bed down and then head of bed up to aspirate sequentially the left diaphragmatic area, right diaphragmatic area, right paracolic gutter, right mesentery, right paracolic gutter, and then finally into the pelvis. The irrigant returns clear. There is minimal blood loss during the dissection mostly the lysis of adhesions but total blood loss is perhaps less than 10 or 15 mL’s. Under vision I remove the two 5 mm ports, I find no back bleeding. I now deflate the abdomen and remove the midline port. All sites are irrigated with saline. The midline fascia at the umbilicus is closed with 2 placed 0 Vicryl sutures under direct vision. Each site is irrigated and skin closed loosely with staples with covered arm applied. I had infiltrated a total of 30 mL 0.5% Marcaine with epinephrine distributed at the 3 port sites. She is awakened and extubated, transported to PACU. There were no intraoperative complications and no cardiopulmonary altered vital signs.
*

Medical Billing and Coding Forum

Bowel resection w/ appendectomy

We’ve got a difference of opinion regarding the appy. Path states fibrous obliteration on the appendix.

44202 & 44970 OR 44202

Operative Findings: Large Meckel’s diverticulum with adhesion right at this area to the omentum causing an obstruction and internal hernia with complete small bowel obstruction. There was about 40-50 cm of small bowel with significant ischemic changes. We decided to remove the appendix as well as resection of small bowel containing the ischemia and Meckel’s

Details of Operation: We immediately looked in the abdominal cavity and salivary of dilated small bowel loops extending to the right lower quadrant was an ischemic segment of small bowel in the right lower quadrant. We placed 1 more 5 mm trochar and wound 12 mm trocar in the left side of the abdomen. We used these trochars to examine the small bowel. We ran the small bowel from proximal to distal. We able to identify a segment of small bowel with a Meckel’s diverticulum with an omental band extending to the mesentery of the Meckel’s causing a complete small bowel obstruction. We cut this adhesive band which released the small bowel. However there still seem to be an internal hernia with a small bowel twisted. We therefore identified the cecum and ran the small bowel proximally from the ileocecal valve backwards toward the ileum and jejunum. By doing this I was able to reduce all the small bowel completely and identified the Meckel’s diverticulum again and all the small bowel was completely released.
*
At this time we planned for a resection. We decided however first to remove the appendix. We made a window at the base of the appendix at the cecum level. We fired echelon at the current 60 blue load stapler across the base the appendix and a white load stapler across the mesoappendix. The staple lines were clipped for hemostasis and the appendix was placed into an Endobag and removed through the 12 mm trocar site on the left side. The appendix was noninflamed.
*
We then grasped the Meckel’s diverticulum. We made a larger incision in the infraumbilical midline measuring about 4-5 cm. We dissected down through the anterior midline fascia into the dental cavity. We placed a wound protector in this wound. We exteriorized the medical diverticulum as well as the small bowel through this wound. This was done very easily. We used a Doppler to identify Doppler flow. The patient did have good blood flow to the entire area of small bowel around the diverticulum. We therefore divided the small bowel with a 60 blue stapler about 5 cm proximal and distal to the medical diverticulum. We made sure that it had good blood flow. We divided the mesentery between clamps and ties. We sent the specimen including the Meckel’s off the table as a fresh specimen. We then performed a side-to-side functional end-to-end anastomosis of the small bowel to itself but make it to matching enterotomies and using a 60 blue stapler for the anastomosis. Once we did this however we are not happy with the way the small bowel looked because it was quite hemorrhagic despite the fact that it had very good blood flow. We therefore decided to resect about a 40 cm segment of small bowel around this area to healthy small bowel. We used a 60 blue stapler for both

608630976_10_04

Medical Billing and Coding Forum

Appendectomy diagnosis coding help

Hi Everyone
I have a case in which the patient came into the ER with severe right lower quad pain. They took the patient into surgery for appendectomy for "possible" appendicitis. The path report says "specimen is suggestive for acute appendicitis" I am torn between the following Dx codes and don’t want to make an error. R10.31, K35.80, or I thought about Z03.89. Thank you for any help

Medical Billing and Coding Forum

Appendectomy with negative path

I have a patient who came in through the ED with a positive CT of the lower quadrant signifying possible appendicitis . The patient is taken to the OR , The physician does a laparoscopic appendectomy with abdominal lavage , he find the patient has a hemorrhagic ruptured ovarian cyst, this is why he done the lavage (49320) , to clear out the caviety from blood.
The appendix path comes back as completely normal .

My question : The intent of this surgery was to remove the appendix because of possible appendicitis , but it ended up being negative in the end .
As far as I know, the surgeon can go ahead and bill for the laparoscopic appendectomy , however there is a strong possibility of denial .
I have googled, and researched local websites and I can’t find any solid proof of the "rules" for when something like this happens. Is it ok to bill this procedure?
Can anyone show me any proof of why this is ok?

Medical Billing and Coding Forum