Failed Back Surgery Syndrome (2026): Causes, Symptoms, Diagnosis & Treatment

Still having pain after spine surgery — whether it never fully went away, or came back after a period of feeling better — is a genuinely disorienting experience, and it’s often accompanied by a nagging question: did the surgery fail, and does that mean I need another one? The honest answer is more nuanced than either extreme. Persistent pain after spine surgery has many possible causes, some correctable and some not, and figuring out which one applies to you — before considering another procedure — is the entire point of proper evaluation.

What Is Failed Back Surgery Syndrome?

Failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) is an older umbrella term for persistent or recurrent pain following spine surgery — it is not a single diagnosis with one cause, and the name itself is somewhat misleading, since pain can persist even when an operation was technically performed correctly. Modern pain medicine literature increasingly uses the term Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome (PSPS) instead, reflecting a more accurate understanding: surgery can successfully address one structural problem while another pain generator — recurrent compression, adjacent-segment changes, hardware issues, nerve injury, scar tissue, or pain processing that isn’t tied to a single fixable structure — remains or develops afterward.

Persistent pain after spine surgery does not automatically mean the surgery was unsuccessful, and it does not automatically mean that another surgery is the answer — this is the central principle this entire article is built around.

FBSS vs. Persistent Spinal Pain Syndrome — Same Condition, Better Name

Terminology in this space has genuinely evolved, and it’s worth understanding why. “Failed back surgery syndrome” implies a binary outcome — the surgery either worked or failed — that doesn’t reflect the actual clinical reality, where a technically successful operation can leave a patient with ongoing pain from an entirely separate source, or where a patient’s pain-processing system itself has changed in ways surgery alone can’t address. PSPS is increasingly preferred in current pain medicine literature and practice for this reason. Both terms describe the same clinical situation; this article uses them interchangeably, noting that you may encounter either depending on your clinician or region. Neither term implies your original surgeon made an error — persistent pain can occur even after appropriately indicated, well-performed surgery.

Which Surgeries Can Lead to Persistent Spinal Pain?

Persistent or recurrent symptoms can occur after essentially any spine procedure — discectomy, microdiscectomy, laminectomy, decompression, foraminotomy, spinal fusion (instrumented or not), cervical or lumbar procedures, and disc replacement among them. No particular operation is inherently prone to “failing” — the likelihood and nature of persistent symptoms relates more to the original diagnosis, patient selection, disease complexity, and what happens biologically and mechanically at and around the operated level afterward, than to the specific procedure type itself.

Why Can Pain Persist After Spine Surgery?

• Residual or recurrent compression: The original nerve compression may remain, or problems such as recurrent disc herniation, spinal stenosis, or new degeneration may develop.
• Adjacent segment disease: After fusion, nearby spinal levels may develop degeneration and symptoms. Imaging changes alone do not necessarily mean they are causing pain.
• Pseudarthrosis: A spinal fusion may fail to heal completely, allowing continued movement and persistent pain. CT and dynamic X-rays may help identify this problem.
• Hardware complications: Loose, broken, or migrated screws and rods can sometimes cause symptoms, but abnormal imaging does not automatically mean hardware is the pain source.
• Infection: Early or delayed spinal infections can cause persistent pain and require appropriate laboratory and imaging evaluation.
• Epidural fibrosis: Scar tissue commonly develops after spine surgery. However, its presence on MRI does not automatically mean it is causing chronic pain.
• Nerve injury: Longstanding nerve compression may cause lasting nerve damage, even after successful decompression. Recovery varies between patients.
• Neuropathic or nociplastic pain: Pain may persist because of nerve dysfunction or altered pain processing without ongoing structural compression. These are genuine medical pain mechanisms and do not mean the pain is imaginary.

The Original Diagnosis May Need Reconsidering

Sometimes persistent symptoms after spine surgery reflect the fact that the spine wasn’t the complete picture to begin with, or that a coexisting source wasn’t fully addressed. Potential alternative or additional sources include hip pathology, sacroiliac joint dysfunction, peripheral neuropathy (nerve problems outside the spine itself), myofascial pain, vascular disease, inflammatory conditions, and, less commonly, infection or tumor unrelated to the surgical site. Before another spine operation is considered, it’s worth clinicians actively asking whether the spine is genuinely the source of current symptoms — this question sometimes gets skipped when a patient has an established spine-surgery history, and it shouldn’t be.

Symptoms

Presentations vary considerably and can include persistent low-back or neck pain (depending on the level operated on), buttock pain, radiating leg or arm pain, burning or electric/shooting sensations (often suggesting a neuropathic component), numbness, tingling, weakness, walking limitation, and reduced overall physical function. Symptoms can appear as persistent pain that never meaningfully improved, recurrent pain after a genuine period of initial improvement, or new pain in a different distribution than the original problem.

It’s clinically useful to distinguish axial pain (centered in the back/neck itself), radicular pain (following a specific nerve-root distribution), neuropathic pain (burning, electric-quality pain from nerve dysfunction), mechanical pain (related to movement, position, or loading), and nociplastic/centralized pain mechanisms (pain processing changes not explained by a single structural lesion) — since these point toward genuinely different evaluation and treatment approaches.

When Is Persistent Pain After Spine Surgery an Emergency?

This deserves a highly visible, unmissable section. Seek urgent or emergency evaluation — not a routine follow-up appointment — for: new or progressive weakness, loss of bladder or bowel control, saddle anesthesia, rapidly worsening neurological symptoms, new significant difficulty walking, fever with severe spinal pain, wound drainage, increasing redness or swelling at the surgical site, severe new pain following trauma, or any new significant neurological deficit. These symptoms suggest possible spinal cord/cauda equina compromise, infection, or other genuinely urgent complications requiring prompt assessment. If you experience new bowel/bladder dysfunction, saddle numbness, or progressive weakness after spine surgery, this warrants emergency evaluation, not a wait for your next scheduled visit.

Early Postoperative Pain vs. Chronic Persistent Pain

Some degree of pain immediately following spine surgery is expected as part of normal healing — this is not FBSS/PSPS. What distinguishes genuinely persistent or recurrent postoperative pain is symptoms that continue well beyond expected healing time, recur after a period of genuine improvement, or represent new neurological findings that weren’t part of the expected postoperative course. Your surgical team can help distinguish expected recovery from something warranting further evaluation — normal postoperative pain shouldn’t be immediately labeled as treatment failure, but genuinely concerning or persistent symptoms shouldn’t be dismissed as “just recovery” indefinitely either.

How Is Persistent Pain After Spine Surgery Diagnosed?

There is no single test that diagnoses FBSS/PSPS — evaluation requires history, physical examination, review of the original surgery, imaging, neurological assessment, and, where appropriate, targeted investigations, brought together rather than relying on any one piece of information alone.

History

A thorough history typically explores: what the original diagnosis was, what surgery was performed and at which level, why surgery was recommended, whether pain improved after surgery and for how long, whether current symptoms recurred suddenly or gradually, whether current symptoms match the original presentation or are genuinely different, presence of weakness or numbness, whether pain is axial or radiating, prior treatments already tried, current medications, relevant psychosocial or work factors affecting function, and any symptoms suggesting infection.

Reviewing the Original Surgery

Clinicians evaluating persistent pain typically want to review the original preoperative MRI, the preoperative diagnosis, the operative report, postoperative imaging, implant records if hardware was placed, and any previous complications or pathology/culture results if relevant. This review is about understanding your specific situation accurately — it’s not, and shouldn’t be treated as, a judgment of the original surgeon. Persistent symptoms don’t prove technical failure or negligence; they’re far more often explained by the genuine biological and mechanical complexity discussed throughout this article.

Physical Examination

Examination assesses neurological status (strength, reflexes, sensation), gait, range of motion, neural tension signs, hip examination, sacroiliac joint evaluation, functional assessment, and signs suggestive of myofascial pain — helping determine whether current symptoms are more likely neurological, mechanical, musculoskeletal, referred from elsewhere, or systemic in origin.

Imaging: MRI, CT, and Dynamic X-rays

Contrast-enhanced MRI can be particularly useful for distinguishing postoperative scar tissue from recurrent disc material, or evaluating for infection — though not every patient automatically needs contrast; this depends on the specific clinical question being asked. Whole-spine alignment imaging (such as EOS imaging) may have a role in evaluating global sagittal or coronal balance in selected complex cases, particularly involving adult spinal deformity, though this is not a routine test for most patients.

EMG/Nerve Conduction Studies

Electrodiagnostic testing (EMG/NCS) can help confirm ongoing nerve-root dysfunction and, importantly, help distinguish radiculopathy (spine-related nerve-root problem) from peripheral neuropathy (a nerve problem unrelated to the spine) when the clinical picture is genuinely unclear — though it has its own limitations and isn’t necessary for every patient.

Laboratory Testing

Blood tests (including complete blood count, ESR, and CRP) are relevant specifically when postoperative infection is suspected, rather than routine testing for every patient with persistent pain. Normal inflammatory markers don’t completely exclude every possible low-grade or chronic infection — clinical suspicion still matters even with reassuring lab results.

Diagnostic Injections

Selective diagnostic procedures — epidural injections, selective nerve-root blocks, facet/medial branch blocks, or sacroiliac joint injections — can provide information about a possible pain generator by observing whether targeted local anesthetic meaningfully relieves symptoms. A diagnostic block providing temporary relief doesn’t automatically prove that structure is the sole cause of your chronic pain — it’s one piece of information to weigh alongside the full clinical picture, not a definitive, standalone test.

Differential Diagnosis

The range of possibilities genuinely evaluated in persistent post-surgical spine pain includes: recurrent disc herniation, spinal stenosis, adjacent segment disease, pseudarthrosis, hardware complication, infection, epidural fibrosis, arachnoiditis (inflammation of the membranes surrounding spinal nerves, an uncommon but recognized cause), facet-mediated pain, sacroiliac joint dysfunction, hip disease, peripheral neuropathy, myofascial pain, inflammatory disease, and nociplastic/centralized pain mechanisms without a discrete structural lesion.

Treatment: A Decision Framework, Not a Menu

Treatment decisions should follow a logical sequence: identify the likely pain generator → assess neurological status → determine whether structural correction is realistically possible and likely to help → evaluate nonoperative options → consider targeted, less invasive intervention → consider revision surgery only when a genuine, specific indication exists. This is deliberately not a simple menu of equally-weighted options to choose between.

Non-Surgical Management

For many patients, particularly where no single clear structural target for revision surgery is identified, comprehensive non-surgical management is the appropriate foundation: patient education, activity modification, individualized exercise, physiotherapy, core/strength conditioning, functional restoration programs, appropriate neuropathic pain management, psychological/behavioral pain interventions where relevant, sleep optimization, weight management where appropriate, smoking cessation, and occupational rehabilitation.

Multidisciplinary rehabilitation — combining several of these elements together rather than any single approach alone — is often genuinely important in managing chronic postoperative pain.

Physiotherapy — Realistic Goals

Physiotherapy after spine surgery focuses on individualized exercise, strengthening, mobility, aerobic conditioning, neuromuscular control, functional rehabilitation, and graded activity. Being direct: physiotherapy does not remove scar tissue or reverse a fusion — its realistic goals are improving function, reducing disability, improving physical conditioning, helping manage pain, and rebuilding confidence in movement, which are genuinely valuable outcomes even without eliminating pain entirely.

Medications

NSAIDs, acetaminophen/paracetamol, and neuropathic pain medications (used specifically when a neuropathic pain component is identified) represent the main medication categories, each with their own benefits, limitations, and need for appropriate monitoring. This article discusses categories, not personalized prescriptions — medication decisions require your prescribing clinician’s direct involvement given your specific health history and other medications.

Opioids — An Honest Assessment

Opioids are sometimes used for severe postoperative or chronic post-surgical pain, but current evidence and guidance generally caution against long-term opioid therapy as a default strategy for chronic post-surgical spinal pain, given real risks including dependence, tolerance, overdose, and, notably, opioid-induced hyperalgesia (a phenomenon where prolonged opioid use can paradoxically increase pain sensitivity over time) — alongside limited evidence of sustained functional benefit. This isn’t a judgment of patients currently on opioid therapy; it reflects why this shouldn’t be the default long-term plan, and any changes to opioid medication must be made collaboratively with your prescribing clinician, never abruptly on your own.

Epidural Steroid Injections

These may have a role specifically for radicular pain components, offering potential temporary symptom relief in selected patients. Epidural injections do not heal a failed fusion, regenerate damaged discs, or repair nerve injury — they offer symptom control, sometimes valuable as part of a broader plan, not structural correction.

Facet/Medial Branch Procedures

When facet-mediated pain is suspected based on clinical presentation, diagnostic medial branch blocks can help confirm this before proceeding to radiofrequency ablation (a procedure interrupting the pain signal from that specific joint). This targets a specific, confirmed pain generator — it should not be marketed or expected as a general cure for FBSS/PSPS broadly, since it only addresses facet-mediated pain specifically, not every possible cause of persistent post-surgical pain.

Sacroiliac Joint Pain

SI-joint pain can genuinely be overlooked after lumbar fusion, since the biomechanical changes from fusion can increase stress on this joint. Evaluation includes clinical examination and, where appropriate, diagnostic injection, with conservative management or selected interventions considered based on findings. Not every post-fusion patient has SI-joint dysfunction — this shouldn’t be assumed without appropriate clinical evaluation any more than any other potential pain generator discussed here.

Adhesiolysis (Epidural Lysis of Adhesions) — A Genuinely Controversial Procedure

This deserves an honest, high-scrutiny treatment. Adhesiolysis is intended to mechanically or chemically break down epidural scar tissue believed to be compressing or irritating neural structures. Evidence for this procedure remains genuinely limited and it is an area of real controversy in the pain medicine literature — study quality is mixed, patient-selection criteria aren’t fully standardized, and it should not be marketed or understood as a universal “scar tissue removal solution.” If this procedure is proposed for you, it’s entirely reasonable to ask directly what specific evidence supports it for your particular situation, given the genuinely unsettled state of evidence in this area.

Spinal Cord Stimulation

Does spinal cord stimulation help FBSS/PSPS? Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a form of neuromodulation — an implanted device that delivers electrical signals to the spinal cord, intended to modify pain signal processing and provide relief, particularly for neuropathic and radicular pain components. It is not designed to repair or reverse any structural spine problem; its goal is pain reduction and functional/quality-of-life improvement in appropriately selected patients, not structural repair.

Candidates are typically patients with predominantly neuropathic or radicular pain that has persisted despite appropriate conservative treatment, and for whom further surgery isn’t clearly indicated or desired given its risks. The process generally involves a trial period (a temporary external device, testing whether stimulation provides meaningful relief) before proceeding to permanent implantation if the trial is successful — this staged approach exists specifically to avoid permanently implanting a device unlikely to help.

Being honest about effectiveness: published data commonly cited in this space suggests roughly half of appropriately selected patients experience a clinically meaningful (often defined as 50%) reduction in pain — a real, valuable benefit for many, but not a guarantee, and not complete pain elimination for most. Effectiveness can also diminish over time in some patients for reasons not fully understood. Device-related risks include infection, lead migration (the thin wires shifting position, sometimes reducing effectiveness or requiring revision), and, for battery-based systems, eventual battery depletion requiring replacement surgery.

Newer technologies — including high-frequency stimulation, burst stimulation, and dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation, which targets specific nerve bundles more precisely — represent evolving options within neuromodulation. Newer does not automatically mean better for your specific situation — each has its own evidence base, appropriate indications, and limitations, worth discussing directly with a specialist experienced in neuromodulation rather than assuming the newest technology is automatically the right choice.

When Is Revision Surgery Appropriate?

Revision surgery may genuinely help when there’s recurrent nerve compression, a recurrent disc herniation, significant spinal stenosis, hardware failure, pseudarthrosis, significant spinal instability, progressive deformity, infection requiring surgical management, or neurological compromise — situations where a clear, correctable structural problem has been identified that plausibly explains your current symptoms.

When Revision Surgery May NOT Help

This deserves equal, explicit attention. Revision surgery is less likely to help, and may not be appropriate, when: no clear structural pain generator can be identified despite thorough evaluation, imaging abnormalities don’t actually correlate with your specific symptoms and examination findings, pain is predominantly nociplastic or centralized in nature rather than tied to an ongoing structural problem, surgical risks reasonably outweigh the likely benefit given your specific situation, or the previous surgery has already adequately addressed the structural pathology that was present. A second operation should not be performed merely because a patient is still in pain — this is worth stating as plainly as possible, because the instinct to “just try surgery again” is understandable but not always the right or safest path forward.

Revision Surgery Is Often More Complex Than the Original Procedure

Revision procedures commonly involve navigating existing scar tissue, altered anatomy from the previous surgery, existing hardware, potential bone loss, pseudarthrosis if present, and adjacent-level disease — factors that can mean longer operative time, greater blood loss, and generally increased complexity and risk compared with a first-time spine operation at a “clean” level.

The revision options, chosen based on the specific identified problem, include: pseudarthrosis repair with bone grafting, hardware revision, extending or modifying a previous fusion, alignment correction, and additional decompression for recurrent stenosis or nerve compression. Disc replacement in a previously operated spine (cervical or lumbar) may be considered in carefully selected cases, though prior fusion at an adjacent level and other factors can limit candidacy, and evidence in this specific revision context is more limited than for primary disc replacement.

Minimally invasive and robotic/navigation-assisted techniques may be used for revision surgery where appropriate, potentially offering advantages like more precise hardware placement in complex, altered anatomy. Neither “minimally invasive” nor “robotic-assisted” guarantees a better outcome or automatically means lower risk — these are technique and technology choices within an appropriate surgical plan, not substitutes for correct diagnosis and patient selection, and altered anatomy from prior surgery can make even minimally invasive approaches technically demanding.

Risks of Revision Surgery

Relevant risks include infection, bleeding, dural tear/CSF leak, nerve injury (and, rarely, spinal cord injury depending on level and procedure), hardware complications, nonunion, adjacent-segment disease, persistent or recurrent pain despite the procedure, blood clots, anesthesia-related complications, and the possibility of needing further revision in the future. Risk level depends heavily on the specific procedure, number of levels involved, how many prior surgeries you’ve had, amount of scar tissue, bone quality, spinal alignment, other health conditions, and overall case complexity — meaningfully individualized rather than a single universal risk figure.

Psychological and Pain-System Factors

This deserves careful, respectful treatment. Chronic postoperative pain can genuinely involve sleep disruption, depression, anxiety, fear-avoidance behavior, pain catastrophizing, reduced activity, and social or work-related stress — alongside pain-processing changes like central sensitization.

These psychological and pain-system factors can influence pain intensity and disability without this meaning the pain is imaginary, fabricated, or “all in your head.” This is precisely why psychological assessment and support are a legitimate, evidence-based part of high-quality chronic pain care — not a dismissal of your physical experience, but an acknowledgment that chronic pain genuinely involves more than tissue damage alone, and addressing all relevant contributing factors together tends to produce better outcomes than addressing structural factors in isolation.

Multidisciplinary Pain Management

Complex, persistent post-surgical spinal pain often benefits from coordinated involvement of spine specialists, pain physicians, physiotherapists, rehabilitation specialists, psychologists, and, where relevant, neurologists — working together rather than any single provider managing the entire picture alone. The goal of this approach is not to “give up on surgery” as an option, but specifically to match treatment to the actual pain mechanism(s) present in your case, which are frequently more than one factor acting together.

Prognosis

Realistically: some patients improve substantially once the correct pain generator is identified and specifically treated. Some improve meaningfully through rehabilitation and multidisciplinary pain management without any further surgery. Some genuinely benefit from revision surgery when a clear structural indication exists. and some benefit from neuromodulation.

And some patients continue to experience chronic symptoms despite extensive, appropriate evaluation and treatment — this is a genuine possibility that shouldn’t be hidden, even while pursuing every reasonable, evidence-based avenue for improvement.

Can Failed Back Surgery Syndrome Be Cured?

“Cure” is often the wrong framework for this condition, and it’s worth explaining why directly. What’s achievable varies by cause: correcting a genuine structural problem (recurrent compression, pseudarthrosis, infection) can produce substantial, sometimes complete, symptom resolution when that structural problem is truly the dominant pain source.

Managing neuropathic or centralized pain mechanisms — which don’t have a single structural target to “fix” — is more realistically framed around meaningfully improving function and reducing pain burden, rather than promising complete elimination. Avoid any source implying every patient with FBSS/PSPS can become completely pain-free through the right treatment — this overpromises in a way that sets patients up for disappointment even after receiving genuinely appropriate care.

Preventing Persistent Pain After Spine Surgery

While persistent pain isn’t always preventable, several factors genuinely support better outcomes: accurate diagnosis before the original surgery, appropriate patient selection based on solid evidence for that specific indication, smoking cessation (smoking is associated with worse fusion and healing outcomes), optimizing diabetes and other relevant health conditions before surgery, bone-health optimization (particularly relevant for fusion healing), diligent rehabilitation participation, following postoperative instructions, appropriate follow-up scheduling, and prompt evaluation of any new neurological symptoms or signs of infection rather than waiting.

Failed Back Surgery Syndrome Treatment in India

International patients researching evaluation for persistent post-surgical spinal pain in India will find access to revision spine surgeons, neurosurgeons, pain medicine specialists, neurologists, musculoskeletal/neuroradiologists, rehabilitation specialists, physiotherapists, and, where relevant, infectious disease specialists at major centers.

A reasonable evaluation pathway generally includes: second-opinion review of your case and imaging, further imaging or testing if genuinely needed, and — depending on findings — progression through nonoperative rehabilitation, pain management and diagnostic injections, neuromodulation, or revision surgery only where a specific indication exists. Not every patient should proceed to revision surgery, and a responsible evaluation should make that clear based on your specific findings rather than defaulting to another operation because you’ve already had surgery once.

Cost

Costs vary substantially depending on which pathway is appropriate for your case:

International Patient Journey

1. Collect your operative reports from the original surgery
2. Collect preoperative and postoperative MRI/CT/X-ray images (not just written reports, where possible)
3. Collect implant/device information, if hardware was placed
4. Document your previous treatment history and current medications
5. Specialist review of all of the above
6. Reassessment of the diagnosis — including whether the spine is genuinely the current pain source
7. Determination of the likely pain generator, and whether any urgent pathology exists
8. Discussion of nonsurgical and surgical options, honestly, based on findings
9. A treatment estimate specific to the recommended plan
10. Travel and accommodation planning, with medical visa documentation support where applicable
11. In-person specialist assessment, with additional investigations if genuinely needed
12. Treatment
13. Rehabilitation
14. Follow-up and return-home planning, with long-term follow-up coordination

International patients should not travel solely on the promise of revision surgery without appropriate specialist review of the underlying diagnosis and imaging first — this is worth stating plainly, since committing to travel around a specific procedure before proper evaluation risks exactly the “surgery because you’re still in pain” pattern this article cautions against throughout.

Questions to Ask a Revision Spine Specialist

1. What exactly is causing my current pain?
2. Is my current pain the same as my original symptoms, or genuinely different?
3. Is there a structural problem visible on imaging, and does it actually match my symptoms?
4. Is there recurrent nerve compression or a recurrent disc herniation?
5. Do I have pseudarthrosis, or is my hardware causing a problem?
6. Is there adjacent segment disease?
7. Could my pain be coming from my SI joint or hip rather than the original surgical site?
8. Could this pain be neuropathic in nature?
9. Is infection a possibility here?
10. Do I need MRI with contrast, CT, or dynamic X-rays specifically?
11. Would EMG/NCS help clarify my situation?
12. Would a diagnostic injection be useful before deciding anything else?
13. Do I actually need revision surgery, or would nonoperative treatment be appropriate first?
14. What is the specific goal of another operation, if one is proposed?
15. What happens if I choose not to pursue further surgery right now?
16. What is the evidence for spinal cord stimulation specifically in my situation?
17. Would I need a trial before any permanent implantation?
18. What are the realistic risks of the proposed treatment?
19. Could another operation make my current situation worse?
20. What does the expected rehabilitation process look like?

Myths vs. Facts

Frequently Asked Questions

Conclusion

Persistent pain after spine surgery deserves proper reassessment — it does not automatically mean the previous surgery was technically unsuccessful, and it does not automatically mean another surgery is needed. The first priority is identifying the most likely cause of your current symptoms specifically, not assuming the answer before that evaluation happens. Some patients benefit substantially from rehabilitation and multidisciplinary pain management without further surgery; some benefit from targeted, evidence-supported interventions; some appropriately selected patients benefit from neuromodulation; and revision surgery can be genuinely valuable when a clear structural problem exists — though it carries meaningful risks and shouldn’t be pursued simply because pain persists.

International patients can share their operative reports and imaging with Shifam Health to help coordinate an appropriate specialist review and understand potential treatment options in India, particularly before committing to another procedure.

This article is for general informational purposes and does not constitute medical advice. Persistent pain after spine surgery requires individualized evaluation by a qualified spine and/or pain medicine specialist to determine the underlying cause before any treatment decision, including revision surgery, is made. If you experience new bowel/bladder dysfunction, saddle numbness, progressive weakness, or signs of infection after spine surgery, seek prompt or emergency medical attention.