Revision Spine Surgery

Most spine operations are done once and are not repeated. A proportion, however, are followed sooner or later by a second operation, and sometimes a third or more. Collectively these repeat operations are known as revision spine surgery. The term covers an enormous range, from a small keyhole procedure to remove a disc fragment that has herniated again, through to a major reconstruction that realigns a whole stooped spine. The common thread is not the size of the operation but the setting in which it is performed: a spine whose normal anatomy has already been changed by previous surgery, and a patient whose symptoms have either never fully settled or have returned.

Revision surgery deserves to be treated as a subject in its own right for two connected reasons. The first is that the previously operated spine is technically a different and harder environment to work in. The second, and more important, is that the question of whether to re-operate at all is genuinely difficult. After a first operation has not produced the hoped-for result, there is a natural wish to put things right, but a second operation is not automatically the answer, and the evidence is consistent that the results of repeat surgery are, on average, less good than those of the first operation, and tend to become less good still with each successive attempt.

If there is one principle that dominates the literature on revision spine surgery, it is this: the success of a repeat operation depends, above all, on whether a specific, structural, surgically correctable source of the symptoms — often called the pain generator — can be identified before surgery, and on whether that source genuinely matches what the patient is experiencing. Where a clear and correctable lesion is found and matches the symptoms, revision has a reasonable prospect of helping. Where no such lesion can be defined, and surgery is contemplated on the basis of pain alone, the results are consistently disappointing.

Pain after spine surgery can arise from many sources, and only some are mechanical problems that an operation can fix. A disc that has herniated again, a nerve still compressed by a narrowing, a fusion that has not united, or metalwork pressing where it should not — these are structural problems with structural solutions. By contrast, pain arising from scar tissue around the nerves, from inflammation of the nerve linings, or from the changes that chronic pain produces in the nervous system, does not have a reliable surgical answer, and operating on it tends to add the risks of surgery without the benefit. The assessment before a revision is therefore at least as important as the operation itself.

Recurrent disc herniation is the re-protrusion of disc material at a level already operated upon, typically causing leg pain that returns suddenly after a pain-free interval. Residual or recurrent stenosis describes a narrowing around the nerves that was either incompletely relieved at the first operation or has redeveloped through ongoing degeneration. Adjacent segment disease is wear and degeneration at the level immediately next to a previous fusion. Pseudarthrosis, or non-union, is the failure of a fusion to knit into solid bone. Implant or hardware failure covers loosening, breakage or migration of screws, rods or cages, frequently a consequence of non-union. Flat-back, or fixed sagittal imbalance, is a loss of the spine's normal forward curve, often after a previous fusion. Post-operative infection may itself require revision. Persistent nerve pain, including pain arising from scar tissue and inflammation of the nerve linings, is the most difficult group of all, precisely because it often lacks a discrete, correctable structural target.

Assessment begins with a detailed history that pays close attention to the pattern of symptoms over time. Leg pain that returns abruptly after a good interval points towards a fresh mechanical lesion such as a recurrent disc or a new compression. Symptoms that have been gradual and unremitting more often reflect scar tissue or nerve-lining inflammation, which respond poorly to repeat operation. Examination and imaging then aim to define the lesion precisely. Because a previously operated spine looks different on scans, with metalwork and scar tissue present, the imaging is interpreted with care, and contrast may be used to help distinguish recurrent disc from scar. Standing and bending X-rays are used to assess alignment and to look for movement that would indicate instability or non-union. In selected cases, targeted injections or nerve blocks are described, in which a particular structure is numbed to see whether the pain temporarily settles.

The first reason is scar tissue. After any operation the body heals by forming scar, and around the spinal nerves this epidural fibrosis obscures the normal tissue planes that a surgeon relies upon. The second is the higher risk of a dural tear: in a previously operated spine, scar binds the dura to surrounding structures and the rate of tears is several times that of primary surgery. The third is blood loss, because scarred tissue is more vascular and revision operations tend to take longer. The fourth is altered anatomy: a previous decompression or fusion removes or rearranges the bony landmarks that surgeons normally use to orientate themselves. The fifth is a higher risk of infection, because the tissues of a previously operated spine are scarred and their blood supply is reduced. Together these five factors make revision both slower and riskier, which is precisely why a clear and worthwhile target is so important before embarking on it.

A consistent and sobering theme in the literature is that the results of revision spine surgery are, on average, less good than those of primary surgery, and that they tend to become less good with each successive operation. While more than half of first-time spine operations achieve a good result, the proportion falls substantially with the first revision, further with the second, and further again with the third. One frequently cited summary places the figures at roughly thirty per cent success at the first revision, around fifteen per cent at the second, and only a few per cent at the third, although exact numbers vary between studies. A landmark long-term follow-up of patients undergoing repeat operation for persistent pain reported a successful outcome in only about a third. A large national registry comparing recurrent with first-time disc surgery found satisfaction fell from around four-fifths after a first operation to nearer three-fifths after a revision. A randomised trial in patients with persistent pain after back surgery found that in carefully selected cases a non-destructive treatment (spinal cord stimulation) outperformed repeat surgery. The reason for this gradient is that with each operation the more clearly correctable structural problems tend already to have been addressed, leaving causes that are progressively harder to define and fix, while the technical difficulties accumulate.

Because revision surgery is a higher-risk undertaking with lower average returns, the literature places particular weight on selecting those most likely to benefit. The structural side of selection is as described; the evidence is equally clear that the wider picture matters. A group of psychological and social factors — sometimes called yellow flags, including low mood, anxiety, a tendency to catastrophise about pain and fear of movement — repeatedly predict poorer surgical outcomes, and their influence is, if anything, greater in the revision setting. Tools have been developed specifically to screen for these factors. This is not a judgement about the genuineness of anyone's pain, which is real, but a recognition that surgical results are best when a clear mechanical target, the right symptoms, and a supportive psychological and social context all point the same way.

The evidence base is built largely on retrospective series and registries, with relatively few randomised trials. Where a clear correctable structural lesion is found, the management is generally directed precisely at that lesion: a recurrent disc may be removed again, sometimes with the addition of a fusion; a residual or recurrent narrowing may be decompressed; a non-union may be revised to achieve solid fusion, with attention to the biology of bone healing; failed metalwork is generally revised in conjunction with addressing the underlying non-union; a flat-back deformity may be corrected with a major realignment operation such as a wedge osteotomy. Infection is managed by clearing the infection and dealing with the affected tissues and implants. Where no clear correctable lesion is found — and especially where the difficulty is scar tissue, inflammation of the nerve linings or established chronic nerve pain — the literature is markedly more cautious about repeat surgery. Operating on scar alone is reported to succeed in only about a third of cases, with a meaningful proportion left worse. Non-surgical approaches include structured rehabilitation, pain management and, in selected patients, spinal cord stimulation, which in a randomised comparison outperformed repeat surgery for persistent pain after previous back operations.

Where a clear, correctable structural problem has been identified and addressed — a re-herniated disc removed, a genuine compression relieved, a non-union solidly fused — the published results are reasonably encouraging, and many people gain worthwhile relief, particularly when symptoms matched the lesion and the wider circumstances were favourable. Where the picture is less clear, the outlook is correspondingly more guarded: repeat operations carried out for pain without a defined correctable cause, or for scar tissue and nerve-lining inflammation, are reported to help a minority and leave some no better or worse. Across the field as a whole, the recognition that results decline with each successive revision means that the prospect of benefit is generally weighed against an accumulating burden of technical risk. The quality of the diagnosis before surgery, more than any other single factor, predicts the quality of the result.

This page is general medical education and is not a substitute for individual advice. New or worsening weakness, numbness, saddle numbness or any disturbance of bladder or bowel control requires urgent assessment.

• —North RB, Campbell JN, James CS, et al. Failed back surgery syndrome: 5-year follow-up in 102 patients undergoing repeated operation. Neurosurgery. 1991;28(5):685–691. PMID 1831546.
• —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):98–106. PMID 15617591.
• —Skaf G, Bouclaous C, Alaraj A, Chamoun R. Clinical outcome of surgical treatment of failed back surgery syndrome. Surg Neurol. 2005;64(6):483–488.
• —Chan CW, Peng P. Failed back surgery syndrome. Pain Med. 2011;12(4):577–606.
• —Baber Z, Erdek MA. Failed back surgery syndrome: current perspectives. J Pain Res. 2016;9:979–987.
• —Daniell JR, Osti OL. Failed back surgery syndrome: a review article. Asian Spine J. 2018;12(2):372–379. PMID 29713421.
• —Sebaaly A, Lahoud MJ, Rizkallah M, et al. Etiology, evaluation, and treatment of failed back surgery syndrome. Asian Spine J. 2018;12(3):574–585. PMID 29879788.
• —Hussain A, Erdek M. Interventional pain management for failed back surgery syndrome. Pain Pract. 2014;14(1):64–78.
• —Bokov A, Isrelov A, Skorodumov A, et al. An analysis of reasons for failed back surgery syndrome. Pain Physician. 2011;14(6):545–557. PMID 22086094.
• —Mohi Eldin MM, Razek NMA. Epidural fibrosis after lumbar disc surgery: prevention and outcome evaluation. Asian Spine J. 2015;9(3):370–385.
• —Pheasant R, Kanaan G, et al. Postoperative epidural fibrosis: challenges and opportunities — a review. Bioengineering (Basel). 2024.
• —Leven D, Passias PG, Errico TJ, et al. Risk factors for reoperation in patients treated surgically for intervertebral disc herniation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015;97(16):1316–1325.
• —Österman H, Sund R, Seitsalo S, Keskimäki I. Risk of multiple reoperations after lumbar discectomy: a population-based study. Spine. 2003;28(6):621–627.
• —Heindel P, Tuchman A, Hsieh PC, et al. Reoperation rates after single-level lumbar discectomy. Spine. 2017;42(8):E496–E501.
• —Drazin D, Al-Khouja L, et al. Treatment of recurrent disc herniation: a systematic review. Cureus. 2016. PMID 27382530.
• —Sebaaly A, Riouallon G, et al. Surgical outcomes of post-fusion lumbar flatback deformity with sagittal imbalance.
• —Ferrero E, Liabaud B, Henry JK, et al. Pedicle subtraction osteotomy: a comprehensive analysis in 104 patients. Eur Spine J. 2017. PMID 28475018.
• —Hilibrand AS, Robbins M. Adjacent segment degeneration and adjacent segment disease: the consequences of spinal fusion? Spine J. 2004;4(6 Suppl):190S–194S.
• —Sears WR, Sergides IG, Kazemi N, et al. Incidence and prevalence of surgery at segments adjacent to a previous posterior lumbar arthrodesis. Spine J. 2011;11(1):11–20.
• —Howard R, et al. Risk factors for pseudarthrosis in minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.
• —Chun DS, Baker KC, Hsu WK. Lumbar pseudarthrosis: a review of current diagnosis and treatment. Neurosurg Focus. 2015;39(4):E10.
• —Piasecki DP, et al. Incidence of surgical site infection after spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine. 2020. PMID 31464972.
• —Desai A, Ball PA, Bekelis K, et al. Surgery for lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis in the SPORT study: dural tear and complications. Spine. 2012;37(7):593–601.
• —Gautschi OP, Stienen MN, et al. Influence of psychosocial distress on the results of elective lumbar spine surgery. J Spine Surg. 2017;3(4):636–649. PMID 29057345.
• —Mancuso CA, Duculan R, Cammisa FP, et al. Core Yellow Flags Index (CYFI): development of a brief instrument for psychological assessment in spine surgery. Eur Spine J. 2020;29(7):1619–1626.
• —Kim CH, Chung CK, Park CS, et al. Reoperation rate after surgery for lumbar herniated intervertebral disc disease: nationwide cohort study. Spine. 2013;38(7):581–590.
• —Owen RJ, et al. Recurrent versus primary lumbar disc herniation surgery: patient-reported outcomes in the Swedish Spine Register (Swespine). Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015.

This information is for general patient education and is not a substitute for an individual consultation. Always seek personalised advice from a qualified spinal specialist.