Objective For many medical professionals dealing with patients with persistent pain following spine surgery, the term failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) as a diagnostic label is inadequate, misleading and potentially troublesome. It misrepresents causation. Alternative terms have been suggested but none has replaced FBSS. The International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) published a revised classification of chronic pain, as part of the new International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), which has been accepted by the World Health Organization (WHO). This includes the term Chronic pain after spinal surgery (CPSS), which is suggested as a replacement for FBSS. Methods This article provides arguments and rationale for a replacement definition. In order to propose a broadly applicable yet more precise and clinically informative term, an international group of experts was established. Results 14 candidate replacement terms were considered and ranked. The application of agreed criteria reduced this to a shortlist of four. A preferred option – Persistent spinal pain syndrome – was selected by a structured workshop and Delphi process. We provide rationale for using Persistent spinal pain syndrome and a schema for its incorporation into ICD-11. We propose the adoption of this term would strengthen the new ICD-11 classification. Conclusions This project is important to those in the fields of pain management, spine surgery and neuromodulation, as well as patients labelled with FBSS. Through a shift in perspective it could facilitate the application of the new ICD-11 classification and allow clearer discussion amongst medical professionals, industry, funding organisations, academia, and the legal profession.

We found that an ERAS program could be successfully implemented in elective joint arthroplasty, leading to a shorter duration of hospital stay. We recommend this orthopaedic ERAS pathway.

Abstract Objective To conduct a systematic literature review of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for pain. Design Grade the evidence for SCS. Methods An international, interdisciplinary work group conducted literature searches, reviewed abstracts, and selected studies for grading. Inclusion/exclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with intractable pain of greater than one year’s duration. Full studies were graded by two independent reviewers. Excluded studies were retrospective, had small numbers of subjects, or existed only as abstracts. Studies were graded using the modified Interventional Pain Management Techniques–Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment, the Cochrane Collaborations Risk of Bias assessment, and the US Preventative Services Task Force level-of-evidence criteria. Results SCS has Level 1 evidence (strong) for axial back/lumbar radiculopathy or neuralgia (five high-quality RCTs) and complex regional pain syndrome (one high-quality RCT). Conclusions High-level evidence supports SCS for treating chronic pain and complex regional pain syndrome. For patients with failed back surgery syndrome, SCS was more effective than reoperation or medical management. New stimulation waveforms and frequencies may provide a greater likelihood of pain relief compared with conventional SCS for patients with axial back pain, with or without radicular pain.

No abstract