The essentials of this article
  • What is FBSS — and why was it renamed?
  • What are the real causes of failed back surgery syndrome?
  • How does it present?
  • How is FBSS properly diagnosed?
  • Does it always mean another operation? No.

Of all the patients I see, those who arrive after a spine surgery that didn't work tend to be the most discouraged — and, frequently, among the most fixable. In my own practice, up to half of the patients I operate on were previously operated on by another surgeon — with or without implant placement — and their first surgery, performed elsewhere, didn't resolve their problem. 'Failed back surgery syndrome' (FBSS) is the label, but the name is misleading. It is rarely a single failure, and rarely the end of the road. It's an umbrella for several specific causes, almost always identifiable — and this article explains them so you can have a real conversation with your surgeon.

Had spine surgery and the pain returned? Send your studies for a second opinion.

Send my studies

Failed back surgery syndrome describes persistent or recurrent pain after one or more spine surgeries. It is common enough to have its own literature going back decades. In recent years the field has deliberately moved away from the word 'failed' toward a more accurate term: persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2 (PSPS-2). The change is not cosmetic. 'Failed' suggests the surgeon did something wrong; the modern approach recognizes it as a chronic pain syndrome that needs a structured diagnosis, not a verdict of blame.

A name change that matters
Recent literature holds that 'failed back surgery syndrome' is being replaced by 'persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2' precisely because the old name is imprecise and stigmatizing. As one narrative review frames it, this is no longer a surgeon's defeat but a definable, manageable condition. Reframing it correctly is the first step toward treating it correctly.
Simpson B et al., Neurochirurgie 2023 · Miękisiak G, Medicina 2023 · ref. 6, 7

When pain persists, the task is to figure out what specific problem is generating it. These are the usual suspects:

The usual causes of persistent pain after spine surgery
  • Incomplete or incorrect diagnosis — the structure operated on wasn't the true source of pain, or the wrong level was treated.
  • Incomplete decompression — a pinched nerve was only partly released, so symptoms continue.
  • Recurrent disc herniation — the disc herniates again at the same level, sometimes months or years later.
  • Adjacent segment disease — after a fusion, the level next door takes extra load and degenerates faster.
  • Pseudarthrosis (non-union) — a fusion that didn't fully consolidate leaves residual motion and pain.
  • Hardware failure or malposition — screws or rods that loosen, break, or irritate nearby structures.
  • Epidural fibrosis (scar tissue) — scar forms around the nerves; important to identify precisely, because more surgery is often not the answer.

There are two common patterns, and the difference matters. In the first, the pain never fully went away after surgery — which often points to an incomplete or incorrect diagnosis. In the second, there was real improvement and then the pain returned weeks, months, or years later — which often points to a recurrent herniation, adjacent segment disease, or a failed fusion. New numbness, weakness, or changes in bladder/bowel control are always significant and should never be attributed to 'normal' recovery.

In revision, the decisive step is diagnosis, not surgery. A thorough evaluation includes a detailed history and physical exam, your prior surgical report, and updated imaging: MRI, CT, and often dynamic (flexion-extension) X-rays to rule out instability. The single most important question is simple to state and hard to answer well: what, exactly, is generating the pain right now?

Scar or recurrent herniation? Use contrast
One distinction changes everything in the operated spine: telling epidural fibrosis (scar) apart from a recurrent disc herniation. On a contrast-enhanced MRI, scar tissue takes up the contrast and enhances; a recurrent disc fragment does not. Getting this right is what separates a patient who may benefit from revision from one for whom more surgery would likely add scar and worsen the picture.
Passavanti Z et al., Skeletal Radiol 2020 · Dina TS et al., AJR 1995 · ref. 11, 12
Red flags — seek immediate attention

Rapidly progressive weakness, loss of bladder or bowel control, numbness in the perineal area, or fever with increasing back pain after surgery require immediate evaluation — not a second opinion in two weeks. Fever with worsening pain can signal a post-surgical infection. Don't wait.

This is the part rarely spelled out clearly to patients: not every case needs more surgery. Revision makes sense when there is a clear, correctable structural target — a recurrent herniation, a residual compression, an unstable or non-fused segment, a malpositioned implant. When there is no such target — for example, pain coming mainly from epidural scar — another operation tends to create more scar and can worsen the pain. A responsible evaluation will tell you honestly which of these two situations you're in, even when the honest answer is 'more surgery is not your best option.'

For patients without a clear surgical target, the evidence supports a multidisciplinary approach: optimized medical management, structured rehabilitation, and attention to the behavioral and psychological dimension of chronic pain. In carefully selected patients with refractory neuropathic pain, neuromodulation (such as spinal cord stimulation) is an established option. None of this is a consolation prize — for the right patient, it outperforms a reoperation.

When there is a clear structural cause, revision surgery can restore meaningful function. Modern series on revision after prior decompression, stenosis surgery, and fusion report good outcomes when the indication is correct, and minimally invasive and endoscopic techniques are increasingly used to navigate around scar tissue with less new trauma. The honest caveat: revision is technically more demanding than a first surgery due to scarring and altered anatomy — which is exactly why precise diagnosis and surgical experience matter so much.

What the revision literature shows
Systematic reviews of reoperation after lumbar decompression and fusion, and of revision after stenosis surgery, support that a well-indicated revision can relieve symptoms, underscoring that patient selection and identifying the correct target are what determine the outcome. The decision of decompression alone versus decompression plus fusion in revision should be individualized, not automatic.
Le Huec JC et al., Eur Spine J 2020 · Lang Z et al., Eur Spine J 2019 · ref. 14, 15

So should I get reoperated or not?

The honest answer is the same one I give in consultation: it depends entirely on finding the true cause first. A reoperation chosen without a clear, correctable target is the most common way revision goes wrong. A reoperation chosen because the imaging and your symptoms point to one specific, fixable problem is where revision shines.

If you were operated on elsewhere and still have pain, a second opinion is reasonable and common — confirming your diagnosis and your options before agreeing to anything costs you nothing. And if the right answer turns out to be 'no more surgery,' that is also a valid answer, and often the wiser one.

Thank you for reading. If you know someone who still has pain after spine surgery, share this with them — they'll thank you for it.

Dr. Rodrigo Ávila Cervantes
Spine Neurosurgeon · FAANS · FCNS · CICOVE Director