Patient Outcome Data
As part of your standard of care, Prof Buckland gathers patient reported outcomes (PROs) in order to ensure we gain clear insights into the success rates of our surgeries. By sharing real patient experiences and outcomes, we aim to build trust and confidence in our procedures, helping you make informed decisions about your healthcare journey. This data not only aids in continuous improvement but also guides others towards achieving their best possible outcomes.
Disclaimer: The results presented herein are representative only of Prof Aaron Buckland’s surgical outcomes and experiences. They are specific to his techniques and practices and cannot be generalized to represent the results of other surgeons. Individual outcomes may vary based on a variety of factors, including but not limited to the specific methods used, patient health conditions, and procedural circumstances.
Functional and Pain Scores Over Time
|
Preoperative |
3 Month Follow-up | 1 Year Follow-up | 2 Year Follow-up |
|---|
| ODI |
39 | 20.2 | 15.3 | 16.9 |
| Back Pain ( /10) |
6.1 | 2.4 | 1.9 | 1.9 |
| Leg Pain ( /10) |
5.4 | 1.6 | 1.2 | 1.3 |
Likelihood of Improvement
<h2>Likelihood of Improvement</h2>
How Do We Measure Clinical Improvement?
Clinical improvement is measured by the ‘Minimally Clinically Important Difference’ (MCID). This measurement is used to determine the change in function that a patient would recognise as beneficial and meaningful.
MCID is measured as an improvement in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) of more than 12.8%.1
1. Copay AG, Glassman SD, Subach BR, Berven S, Schuler TC, Carreon LY. Minimum clinically important difference in lumbar spine surgery patients: a choice of methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, Medical Outcomes Study questionnaire Short Form 36, and Pain Scales. The Spine Journal. 2008;8(6):968-974
Complication Rates
Prof. Buckland’s complication rates are published here online for transparency and to add to the process of Informed Consent. While Prof. Buckland regularly publishes his complication rates in peer-reviewed medical journals, this is not readily available to patients. His goal is to help patients make informed decisions based on real data, and he believes in the importance of sharing this information openly.
HCF Health Insurance is currently the only Australian insurer that publishes their Complication Rates online, providing a helpful benchmark for patients to understand general trends in surgical outcomes. These figures are taken from multiple sources, from local and international publications, and represent an average across various surgeons and hospitals. While useful, they may not capture the nuances of individual surgical practices.
| Complication |
HCF Published Rate - Fusion (%) |
Prof Buckland (%) |
| Significant Improvement (Satisfaction) |
62% |
85% |
| Dural Tear (Spinal Fluid Leak) |
3% – 14% |
0.0% |
| Reoperation for Spinal Fluid Leak |
Not Reported |
0.0% |
| 2Yr Revision Surgery Rate - All Causes |
Not Reported |
4.1% |
| Further Decompression |
Not Reported |
2.2% |
| Failure of Vertebra to Fuse |
5–14% |
0.0% |
| Adjacent Segment Disease |
3% per year |
2.2% |
| Instrumentation Complication |
Not Reported |
0.0% |
| Vascular Injury |
Not Reported |
1.1% |
| Retroperitoneal Seroma |
Not Reported |
2.5% |
| Retrograde Ejaculation |
Not Reported |
0.6% |
| Nerve injury |
0.5% – 2.8% |
0.3% |
| Pulmonary embolus (PE) |
2% – 5% |
1.1% |
| Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) |
1.6% – 5% |
1.1% |
| Infection |
2% – 5% |
0.4% |
| Post-operative bleeding |
1% – 15% |
0.0% |
