• P Rigoard, M J Desai, and R S Taylor.
• Department of neurosurgery, Poitiers university hospital, 86000 Poitiers, France; N(3)Lab (neuromodulation & neural networks), Poitiers university hospital, 86000 Poitiers, France; Inserm CIC 802 Poitiers university hospital, 86000 Poitiers, France. Electronic address: philipperigoard@yahoo.fr.
• Neurochirurgie. 2015 Mar 1;61 Suppl 1:S16-21.

BackgroundThe current definition of Failed Back Surgery Syndrome (FBSS) has a pejorative and restrictive connotation of blame and failure. Optimally, the evaluation of FBSS patients might be based on a multidimensional approach, involving an array of practitioners including spine surgeons, pain physicians, physiotherapists and behavioural specialists. Even though these clinical interactions should lead to a unique approach, one main problem comes from the fact that FBSS definition has varied over time and remains extremely controversial. There is now a need for global consensus about what we call FBSS, why, when and how. Discussing the name of this syndrome appears to be a logical starting point.Discussion"PostOperative Persistent Syndrome", summarised by the acronym "POPS", could be an appropriate term to not only encapsulate failure but pain, function and psychosocial dysfunction following unsuccessful spine surgery whether from a technical or expectation standpoint. A return to the source might help to identify the real clinical problem, i.e. the pain mechanism: nociceptive, neuropathic pain or mixed. A clinical and radiological spine assessment is key to ensure that no further surgery is required, by distinguishing within the so-called FBSS population, "true" FBSS patients and "potential" FBSS patients, who are actually not FBSS patients, as an aetiological treatment of potential pain generators still remains possible.ConclusionWe propose to replace the FBSS acronym by POPS. The ultimate goal of this redefinition would be to guide the patient towards the future rather than the past and to reach a consensus, based on network discussions, concerning the following items: integrate pain mechanisms into the diagnostic process; implement the notion of a predominant ratio between mechanical/neuropathic pain mechanisms, which defines the potential target for treatment options; create a network supported by a database, to prospectively pool and analyse data, using homogeneous evaluation tools and ultimately define outcome predictors in this population.Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

21 keywords...

hide…