I received a number of comments on my last posting. The gist of them was that categorizing and naming prosthetic developments is not about reimbursement or coding, and should not be done with that as the motivating factor. Rather, it should be done for the purpose of scientific accuracy or clinical application. I wholeheartedly agree. It is tantamount to "the tail wagging the dog".
But the reality is that if the clinicians or researchers don't come up with an accurate and practical nomenclature, the bean counters will do it. They have a different agenda and a loud voice.
The challenge, of course, is that, in an emerging technology, things are developing so fast that one can't rush into incorporating names. They can quickly be replaced in the next moment. So we come up with working names and that works. Well I leave it for all of us to discuss and comment on.