Failed Back Surgery Syndrome

Failed back surgery syndrome is one of the most difficult problems in spine practice, and the term covers a heterogeneous group of patients rather than a single disease.

What the term means. Persistent or recurrent low back pain, leg pain or both after lumbar spine surgery, occurring despite an anatomically successful procedure, with symptoms continuing beyond the expected recovery period — typically 3-6 months. The same patient may be labelled as having post-laminectomy syndrome or persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2.

FBSS or surgical failure? In FBSS the operation achieved what it set out to achieve and the pain remains. Surgical failure means the operation itself was at fault: the wrong level, an incomplete decompression, hardware failure. Verify that the surgery was anatomically successful before accepting the syndrome label, because the two need different management.

How often. Reported rates depend on the index procedure and on how extensive it was.

Who is at risk. The risk factors sit in five groups, and only one of them is the operation.

Naming the cause is what makes prevention and management possible. The causes fall into three groups: technical, biological and psychological.

Technical causes

Biological causes

Epidural fibrosis. The most common cause of FBSS, occurring in 5-60% of postoperative patients, in which excessive scar formation tethers the nerve roots. It develops 3-6 months postoperatively and produces radicular pain of burning quality, worse with activity. Management is conservative, with epidural injections and consideration of adhesiolysis; the scar itself enhances peripherally on early gadolinium images.

Recurrent disc herniation. Occurs in 5-15% after discectomy, either early (under 3 months) or late (over 2 years), and the risk is higher with a large annular defect, smoking, young age and heavy labour. The pain is radicular and often starts suddenly during activity, and gadolinium-enhanced MRI separates it from scar.

View larger

Adjacent segment disease. Degeneration at the levels next to a fusion, in 5-25% by 10 years, driven by the increased stress on the adjacent mobile segments. A long construct, sagittal malalignment and pre-existing degeneration all raise the risk. The patient returns with new back or leg pain in a new dermatomal level, with disc degeneration or stenosis at the adjacent level on imaging; treat conservatively at first and consider extending the fusion if the changes are severe.

View larger

Arachnoiditis. An inflammatory reaction that clumps and scars the nerve roots. It is rare, under 5%, and more common after multiple operations; the recognised causes are intrathecal blood, infection and, historically, myelography contrast. MRI shows clumped nerve roots, the empty thecal sac sign and central cord. The prognosis is generally poor with progressive symptoms, and management is pain control while avoiding further surgery.

View larger

Psychological causes

Central sensitisation. Maladaptive neuroplastic change in the central nervous system: altered pain processing with a lowered pain threshold, producing widespread pain, hyperalgesia and allodynia. It is a clinical diagnosis, and the pain is often disproportionate to the pathology. Treatment is a multidisciplinary pain programme with medication and cognitive behavioural therapy.

The yellow flags. These predict a poor outcome, and they are looked for before the operation.

• Depression and anxiety
• Catastrophising and fear-avoidance beliefs
• Poor coping strategies
• Secondary gain (compensation, litigation)
• Job dissatisfaction
• Social isolation

Systematic evaluation is essential to identify the treatable causes and guide management.

History

The questions that change management. A pain-free interval before the pain returned points to recurrence rather than residual pathology, and the character of the pain sorts a nerve under pressure from chronic pain.

Red flags first. These presentations are investigated before anything else on the pathway.

Function and medication. Ask what the pain has cost the patient, and what has already been tried.

• Walking distance and tolerance
• Sleep disruption
• Activities of daily living impact
• Work status and disability
• Medication requirements and escalation
• Previous pain management interventions

Psychosocial screening. Use validated tools rather than impressions: the Oswestry Disability Index, a visual analogue scale for pain, SF-36 for quality of life, PHQ-9 for depression and the Opioid Risk Tool.

Physical examination

Look and feel. Inspect the scar for healing, keloid or drainage, assess coronal and sagittal alignment, watch the gait and note any walking aid, and look for wasting in the affected myotome. Palpate the surgical site for tenderness, the paraspinal muscles for spasm, trigger points and the sacroiliac joint. Record lumbar flexion and extension, which movement reproduces the pain, and any compensation pattern.

The neurological examination is a comparison with the preoperative findings, not a fresh assessment: reflexes may be absent after surgery and a deficit may be old.

Do not forget the vessels. Palpate the peripheral pulses to exclude vascular claudication, look for skin changes, hair loss and temperature difference, and measure the ankle-brachial index if the history points that way.

Differential diagnosis

FBSS is a diagnosis of exclusion. Many conditions mimic persistent post-operative pain, and several arise outside the operated spinal level. Systematically exclude the following before attributing pain to FBSS itself.

Imaging and diagnostic blocks have one purpose here: to find pathology that can be treated, and to say which level is responsible.

Imaging protocol

MRICT and Dynamic FilmsAdvanced Imaging

MRI with gadolinium is the gold standard for FBSS evaluation, and the distinction between epidural scar and recurrent disc is the reason. Specify the timing of the post-contrast sequences on the request: scar enhances within 5 minutes, while a recurrent disc either does not enhance or enhances centrally after 15 minutes.

T1 pre-contrast

Purpose

Baseline anatomy, fat signal

T2 sagittal/axial

Purpose

Disc hydration, stenosis, neural compression

T1 post-gadolinium

Purpose

Distinguish scar vs recurrent disc

Fat-suppressed post-contrast

Purpose

Enhance inflammatory changes

Sequence	Purpose
T1 pre-contrast	Baseline anatomy, fat signal
T2 sagittal/axial	Disc hydration, stenosis, neural compression
T1 post-gadolinium	Distinguish scar vs recurrent disc
Fat-suppressed post-contrast	Enhance inflammatory changes

What else the study shows. Read past the operated level and the contrast pattern for the other causes of persistent pain:

• Pseudomeningocele: CSF collection, dural tear
• Infection: disc signal change, endplate oedema, enhancement
• Stenosis: residual or adjacent level canal narrowing

CT answers bony questions. It is the study for assessing fusion and pseudarthrosis, measuring foraminal stenosis, and checking hardware position and integrity, and it is the fallback when MRI cannot be done at all (pacemaker, severe claustrophobia).

Bridging bone across fusion

Implication

Successful fusion

Lucency around screws

Implication

Hardware loosening

Foraminal height

Implication

Foraminal stenosis assessment

Facet hypertrophy

Implication

Residual lateral stenosis

Finding	Implication
Bridging bone across fusion	Successful fusion
Lucency around screws	Hardware loosening
Foraminal height	Foraminal stenosis assessment
Facet hypertrophy	Residual lateral stenosis

View larger

Plain films. Radiographs, including flexion-extension views, are the first step in looking for a hardware-related cause, and dynamic imaging is crucial for instability assessment and fusion planning.

• Translation over 3-4mm (over 4.5mm if degenerative spondylolisthesis)
• Angulation over 10-15 degrees at a single level
• Compare with the adjacent levels

View larger

Standing films answer the alignment question: the sagittal vertical axis for global alignment, the mismatch between pelvic incidence and lumbar lordosis, and a coronal Cobb angle where there is scoliosis.

SPECT-CT (single photon emission CT) identifies a painful facet joint or pars defect, localises the source in multi-level disease, and guides selective nerve blocks. PET-CT is rarely used in FBSS, and then to identify infection or tumour if either is suspected.

EMG and nerve conduction studies separate radiculopathy from peripheral neuropathy, assess the chronicity and severity of nerve damage, and identify multi-level involvement. What they cannot do is distinguish scar from recurrent disc, and a normal study does not exclude pathology; their value is in prognosis and surgical candidacy.

Diagnostic interventions

Selective nerve root block. Local anaesthetic around the suspected root, with over 75% relief confirming that level. Adding steroid makes it therapeutic as well, and may provide temporary or prolonged relief, and in multi-level disease the block is what identifies the level worth decompressing.

Facet joint injection and medial branch block. These identify a facetogenic source and may guide radiofrequency ablation; over 80% relief with local anaesthetic counts as a diagnostic response.

Discography remains controversial. It is used to identify the painful disc in multi-level disease by provocative injection into the nucleus, and a positive test is concordant pain reproduced at low pressure. The false-positive rate is high and the injection may accelerate degeneration, so current use is limited, mostly to fusion planning in young patients.

Treatment is multidisciplinary and stepwise, and surgery is rarely first-line.

Conservative management (first-line)

Physical therapy. The goals are to restore function and mobility, strengthen the core, improve flexibility and posture, reduce fear-avoidance behaviour, and get the patient back to activity.

Pharmacotherapy is multimodal, and the class is chosen for the character of the pain and for the side effects the patient can tolerate.

Cognitive behavioural therapy. The components are specific and each carries its own goal.

The multidisciplinary programme. Intensive programmes that combine physical therapy, psychological therapy, medication optimisation, occupational therapy and vocational rehabilitation show the best long-term functional outcomes in FBSS.

Interventional pain management

Epidural steroid injection. The approach is chosen by the distribution of the pain and by what the previous surgery has left behind.

Radiofrequency ablation targets the facet joint medial branches or the dorsal root ganglion, is indicated after positive diagnostic blocks, gives 6-12 months of relief, and can be repeated if the first treatment worked.

Neuromodulation

Spinal cord stimulation is the most evidence-based intervention for FBSS with predominant leg pain. The trial comes before the implant, and success at trial means clinically meaningful functional improvement as well as at least 50% pain relief.

View larger

Who is a candidate.

The evidence.

Surgical management (highly selective)

What revision can achieve. Each target carries its own expected result, and the numbers are the honest basis of the consent conversation.

The returns fall with every operation.

Every option offered in FBSS has its own complication profile, and knowing them is what makes the counselling honest.

Complications of conservative treatment

Medication. Each class brings its own hazard, and each hazard has a standard mitigation.

Psychological treatment is generally safe with skilled practitioners. The costs are emotional distress during the early phase of cognitive behavioural therapy, resistance to treatment, and the time and money the programme demands.

Complications of interventional procedures

Epidural steroid injection. Dural puncture is the common one; infection and bleeding are rare, and a haematoma with a neurological deficit needs emergency decompression.

Spinal cord stimulation. The failures belong to the device: leads migrate, hardware fails, and efficacy is lost in 20-30% over time.

Radiofrequency ablation. Neuritis or dysaesthesia in 5-10% is the usual complaint and is usually temporary, resolving over weeks. Skin burns, infection and motor weakness are each under 1%, and technique guards against each: proper grounding, sterility and careful localisation.

Complications of revision surgery

Scar makes revision harder. The dissection runs through scar tissue that obscures the anatomy, and the intraoperative complication rates rise accordingly.

The early problems, in the first 6 weeks after revision:

The late problems, beyond 6 weeks:

Specific high-risk scenarios

A third or subsequent revision. Complication rates exceed 40% and success rates are under 30%; each revision adds to the scar burden, and the risk of neurological injury doubles with each procedure. Consider the non-surgical options preferentially.

Revision during active litigation. Outcomes are significantly worse, the psychological factors dominate, and pain scores stay high despite an anatomically successful operation. Consider delaying surgery until the litigation is resolved.

Revision with concurrent opioid dependence. Postoperative pain management is extremely challenging, infection rates are higher and healing is delayed. These patients need a structured tapering programme before surgery.

Reducing the risk. Patient selection is the single most important factor, and the rest is preoperative optimisation and disciplined technique.

The best treatment for FBSS is prevention, and a systematic approach reduces the incidence.

Before the operation

Get the diagnosis right. The imaging findings have to explain the clinical picture before an operation is offered at all.

Screen and counsel. Screen for depression and anxiety (PHQ-9, GAD-7), catastrophising, litigation and compensation status, substance abuse and social support. Then set the expectation: improvement rather than perfection, a recovery timeline of 3-6 months, the risks and the alternatives, and the shared decision documented.

Optimise what can be optimised. Smoking cessation 4-6 weeks preoperatively, weight optimisation if the BMI is over 35, diabetic control to an HbA1c under 7.5%, nutritional status, and NSAIDs and anticoagulants stopped per protocol.

In the operation

Technique. Of the principles below, level verification is the non-negotiable one.

Discectomy. Remove the loose fragments completely, avoid aggressive curettage of the disc space, preserve annular integrity where possible, and consider limited annular closure techniques.

Decompression. Decompress the lateral recess adequately, undercut the facet if there is foraminal stenosis, decompress both sides for bilateral symptoms, and preserve the pars interarticularis.

The fusion decision. Fuse for instability (over 3-4mm translation) and where over 50% facet resection is required, consider fusion in degenerative spondylolisthesis, and avoid unnecessary fusion, which increases adjacent segment disease.

After the operation

Move the patient early. Early mobilisation is what prevents deconditioning.

Control the pain and refer early. Use multimodal analgesia and minimise opioids, with scheduled NSAIDs if there is no contraindication, neuropathic agents if radicular pain persists, and a transition to oral medication by discharge. Refer to physiotherapy at week 2-4 for core strengthening, flexibility, posture and ergonomic education.

Follow up to a schedule. Wound check and pain assessment at week 2, clinical evaluation at week 6 with imaging if there are concerns, functional assessment at 3 months, and long-term outcome evaluation at 6 and 12 months.

FBSS — increasingly termed persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2 — is a global problem whose incidence has not fallen despite improvements in surgical technique. The world standard of care is interdisciplinary, evidence-led and conservative, with reoperation reserved for clearly defined structural targets.

Global epidemiology

The contemporary population estimate that roughly one in five patients develops persistent post-operative pain within two years comes from a UK Hospital Episode Statistics / CPRD analysis (Weir et al. 2020, DOI), and the observation that failure rates have not declined despite surgical progress is from the standard review (Chan & Peng 2011, DOI).

Major guidance, side by side

Registry and trial evidence

• Two randomised controlled trials anchor neuromodulation practice: PROCESS (Kumar 2007, DOI) showed SCS superior to medical management for neuropathic leg pain, and the North trial (North 2005, DOI) showed SCS superior to repeat surgery for persistent radicular pain.
• Revision discectomy for a clearly identified true recurrence achieves outcomes comparable to primary discectomy in selected patients (Papadopoulos 2006, DOI).
• There is no dedicated international FBSS registry; epidemiology is derived from national administrative datasets (e.g. UK HES/CPRD) and the spine-surgery literature rather than an implant registry.

Global practice variation

• Access to neuromodulation is the dominant source of variation: SCS is widely available in high-income systems but device cost limits use in many limited-resource settings, where multidisciplinary rehabilitation and pharmacological management predominate.
• Terminology is shifting internationally from "failed back surgery syndrome" toward "persistent spinal pain syndrome", reflecting an attempt to remove the blame-laden framing and standardise classification.
• Psychosocial screening before revision surgery is universally endorsed but inconsistently implemented; where compensation or litigation systems exist, outcomes after revision are consistently poorer.
• Opioids have a limited role in chronic FBSS in all major guidance, with international movement toward reduced long-term opioid prescribing and real-time prescription monitoring.

1. Chan CW, Peng P. Failed back surgery syndrome. Pain Med. 2011;12(4):577-606. doi:10.1111/j.1526-4637.2011.01089.x

2. Kumar K, Taylor RS, Jacques L, et al. Spinal cord stimulation versus conventional medical management for neuropathic pain: a multicentre randomised controlled trial in patients with failed back surgery syndrome. Pain. 2007;132(1-2):179-188. doi:10.1016/j.pain.2007.07.028

3. Ross JS, Robertson JT, Frederickson RC, et al. Association between peridural scar and recurrent radicular pain after lumbar discectomy: magnetic resonance evaluation. Neurosurgery. 1996;38(4):855-861. doi:10.1097/00006123-199604000-00053

4. Papadopoulos EC, Girardi FP, Sandhu HS, et al. Outcome of revision discectomies following recurrent lumbar disc herniation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2006;31(13):1473-1476. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000219872.43318.7a

5. Block AR, Ohnmeiss DD, Guyer RD, et al. The use of presurgical psychological screening to predict the outcome of spine surgery. Spine J. 2001;1(4):274-282. doi:10.1016/s1529-9430(01)00054-7

6. Gatchel RJ, Okifuji A. Evidence-based scientific data documenting the treatment and cost-effectiveness of comprehensive pain programs for chronic nonmalignant pain. J Pain. 2006;7(11):779-793. doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2006.08.005

7. North RB, Kidd DH, Farrokhi F, Piantadosi SA. Spinal cord stimulation versus repeated lumbosacral spine surgery for chronic pain: a randomized, controlled trial. Neurosurgery. 2005;56(1):98-107. doi:10.1227/01.neu.0000144839.65524.e0

8. Taylor RS, Ryan J, O'Donnell R, et al. The cost-effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation in the treatment of failed back surgery syndrome. Clin J Pain. 2010;26(6):463-469. doi:10.1097/AJP.0b013e3181daccec

9. Fritsch EW, Heisel J, Rupp S. The failed back surgery syndrome: reasons, intraoperative findings, and long-term results: a report of 182 operative treatments. Spine. 1996;21(5):626-633. doi:10.1097/00007632-199603010-00017

10. Burton CV, Kirkaldy-Willis WH, Yong-Hing K, Heithoff KB. Causes of failure of surgery on the lumbar spine. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1981;(157):191-199.

11. Slipman CW, Shin CH, Patel RK, et al. Etiologies of failed back surgery syndrome. Pain Med. 2002;3(3):200-214. doi:10.1046/j.1526-4637.2002.02033.x

12. Flum AS, Hickey A, Flum DR. Understanding the psychological factors affecting failed back surgery syndrome: a systematic review. Healthcare (Basel). 2021;9(10):1275. doi:10.3390/healthcare9101275

13. Thomson S, Jacques L. Demographic characteristics of patients with severe neuropathic pain secondary to failed back surgery syndrome. Pain Pract. 2009;9(3):206-215. doi:10.1111/j.1533-2500.2009.00276.x

14. Hussain A, Erdek M. Interventional pain management for failed back surgery syndrome. Pain Pract. 2014;14(1):64-78. doi:10.1111/papr.12035

15. Kumar K, North R, Taylor R, et al. Spinal cord stimulation vs. conventional medical management: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter study of patients with failed back surgery syndrome (PROCESS study). Neuromodulation. 2005;8(4):213-218. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1403.2005.00027.x