Draft — pending COA review. Rette derived these criteria from the ACOEM guidelines adopted into the MTUS. They are not COA documents and have not been signed off by a COA physician reviewer.

MTUS Treatment ChecklistbyRette

Utilization Review Checklist

Ganglion Cysts of the Hand and Wrist

Derived from the ACOEM Hand, Wrist and Forearm Disorders Guideline, edition 14 July 2025, as adopted into the California MTUS 2 January 2026. CPT 25111, 25112, 64999. ICD-10 M67.4.

Draft — not reviewed or approved by COA. Prepared by Rette from the ACOEM guideline named above. This is not a COA document and does not reproduce COA’s own checklists.

Patient name: Claim #:

CriteriaCheck if documented

Confirmatory Diagnosis

Required

  • Upper extremity ganglion, subacute or chronic, with symptoms documented

    Surgical intervention is recommended for treatment of subacute or chronic upper extremity ganglia after a trial of non-operative management. — p. 294

Conservative Care

Required

  • A trial of non-operative management before surgical excision

    As most upper extremity ganglia are asymptomatic, consideration of surgical risks and a trial of non-operative management are prudent before performing a surgical procedure for cosmetic reasons. — p. 294

Procedures — the guideline treats each separately

Aspiration of the cyst without other intervention

Recommended. Aspiration (without other intervention) of the cystic fluid is recommended as it may result in immediate relief of acute cosmetic and ganglia related pain.

Strength of Evidence — Recommended, Evidence (C) · confidence low · p. 290

Indications — required:

  • Aspiration requested for acute cosmetic or ganglia-related pain

    One aspiration is recommended (Latif et al., 2014). However, a long-term course of aspiration is usually of no benefit in terms of resolution. — p. 290

Recommended for immediate relief of acute cosmetic and ganglia-related pain. The guideline is specific that ONE aspiration is recommended and that a long-term course of aspiration is usually of no benefit, so a request for repeated aspirations is on weak ground. It also declines to say how many attempts should precede advancing to another intervention.

Surgical excision, arthroscopic or open

Recommended. Surgical intervention is recommended for treatment of subacute or chronic upper extremity ganglia after a trial of non-operative management.

Strength of Evidence — Recommended, Evidence (C) · confidence moderate · p. 294

Indications — required:

  • Arthroscopic or open excision, either technique being recommended

    There is no general indication for one surgical technique (arthroscopic or open excision) over another for all cases and both are recommended. There may be advantages of arthroscopic procedures for ganglia originating in the radiocarpal joints, whereas open excision may have advantages in ganglia originating in midcarpal joints, although both have the same success rate. — p. 295

The best-supported option here — Recommended on (C) evidence at Moderate confidence, and the guideline calls surgery the most effective treatment. It requires a trial of non-operative management first. Arthroscopic and open excision are both recommended with no general indication for one over the other, though the guideline suggests arthroscopic may suit radiocarpal ganglia and open may suit midcarpal ones — naming the joint of origin pre-empts a question about technique.

Aspiration with multiple punctures of the cyst wall

Not Recommended. The technique of multiple punctures of the cyst wall is not recommended as it does not provide improved benefit over simple aspiration.

Strength of Evidence — Not Recommended, Insufficient Evidence (I) · confidence low · p. 291

Indications — required:

  • Aspiration with multiple punctures of the cyst wall requested

    The technique of multiple punctures of the cyst wall is not recommended as it does not provide improved benefit over simple aspiration. — p. 291

Not recommended — it gives no improved benefit over simple aspiration, shows a worse recurrence rate in the non-randomised evidence, and adds skin trauma and infection risk. Request simple aspiration instead, which is recommended.

Aspiration with sclerosing agents (e.g. phenol, hypertonic saline)

Not Recommended. Sclerosing agents (e.g., phenol, hypertonic saline), which when instilled are intended to result in scarring and closure of the cystic potential space, are not recommended.

Strength of Evidence — Not Recommended, Insufficient Evidence (I) · confidence low · p. 293

Indications — required:

  • Aspiration with sclerosing agents requested

    Sclerosing agents (e.g., phenol, hypertonic saline), which when instilled are intended to result in scarring and closure of the cystic potential space, are not recommended. — p. 293

Not recommended. The guideline notes the cyst has no synovial lining, so there is little theoretical reason for a sclerosant to work, and that the cyst connects to the joint space in some cases — creating a real risk of instilling the agent into the joint.

Reviewing this for COA, or think a criterion is wrong?