Around 1% of total hip replacements are follow by prosthetic joint infection (PJI). There is uncertainty about best treatment method for PJI, and the most recent high quality systematic reviews in unselected patients indicates that re-infection rates following one-stage and two-stage revision arthroplasty are relatively similar. In the absence of evidence randomised controlled trials will help to identify the most clinically and cost-effective treatment for PJI. Before such trials are conducted, there is a need to establish reasons for current practice and to identify whether trials are feasible. This study aimed to deliver research that would inform trial design. Specifically, we aimed to characterise consultant orthopaedic surgeons' decisions about performing either one-stage or two-stage exchange arthroplasty for patients with PJI after hip replacement and to identify whether a randomised trial comparing one-stage with two-stage revision would be possible. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 consultant surgeons from 5 high-volume National Health Service (NHS) orthopaedic departments in the UK. Surgeons were sampled on the basis that they perform revision surgery for PJI after hip arthroplasty and final sample size was justified on the basis of thematic saturation. Surgeons were interviewed face-to-face (n=2) or via telephone (n=10). The interview study took place before design of a multicentre prospective randomised controlled trial comparing patient and clinical outcomes after one-stage or two-stage revision arthroplasty. Data were audio-recorded, transcribed, anonymised and analysed using a thematic approach, with 25% of transcripts independently double-coded. Results: There is no standard surgical response to the treatment of PJI and surgeons manage a complex balance of factors when choosing a surgical strategy. These include multiple patient-related factors, their own knowledge and expertise, available infrastructure and the infecting organism. Surgeons questioned whether evidence supports the emergence of two-stage revision as a method. They described the use of loosely cemented articulating spacers as a way of managing uncertainty about best treatment method. All surgeons were supportive of a randomised trial to compare one-stage and two-stage revision surgery for PJI after hip replacement. Surgeons reported that they would put patients forward for randomisation when there was uncertainty about best treatment. Surgeons highlighted the need for evidence to support their choice of revision. Some surgeons now use revision methods that can better address both clinical outcomes and patients' quality of life, such as loosely cemented articulating spacers. Surgeons thought that a randomised controlled trial comparing one-stage and two-stage exchange joint replacement is needed and that randomisation would be feasible. The next stage of the work was to design a multi-centre randomised controlled trial, this has been achieved and the trial is now ongoing in the UK

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is an uncommon but serious complication of hip replacement. Over 1,000 operations are performed annually in the United Kingdom for PJI following hip replacement, using either one- or two-stage revision arthroplasty. It is unclear which is preferred by patients and which has the best long-term outcome. This qualitative study aims to describe patient experiences of treatment and recovery following one- and two-stage revision arthroplasty for PJI within the context of a pragmatic randomised controlled trial comparing these two approaches. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 32 patients undergoing one- or two-stage revision treatment for PJI as part of a UK multi-centre randomised controlled trial. Patients were recruited from 12 participating National Health Service (NHS) Orthopaedic Departments and were interviewed 2–4 months after their first revision surgery and again approximately 18 months later. Final sample size was justified on the basis of thematic saturation. All patients consented to the interview being audio-recorded, transcribed, anonymised and analysed using an inductive thematic approach. Ethical approval was provided by NRES Committee South-West Frenchay, 14/SW/116. Patients in both the one- and two-stage treatment groups described prolonged hospital stays, with burdensome antibiotics and brief physiotherapy treatment. However, following discharge home and during recovery, participants undergoing two-stage revision with an ‘empty hip' or with a spacer reported being physically restricted in almost every aspect of their daily life, resulting in inactivity and confinement to home. Mobility aids were not sufficiently available through the health service for these patients. A key difference is that those with a spacer reported more pain than those without. Approximately one year following their second-stage revision, participants described being more independent and active, but two directly attributed muscle weakness to the lengthy period without a hip and described resulting falls or dislocations that had complicated their recovery. In contrast, those undergoing one-stage revision and CUMARS appeared to be more alike, reporting better mobility, functionality and independence, although still limited. Participants in these groups also reported minimal or no pain following their revision. A key difference between CUMARS and one-stage revision was the uncertainty of whether a second operation was necessary, which participants described as “hanging over them”, while those in the two-stage empty hip or spacer group described a more positive anticipation of a second definitive operation as it marked an end to what was described as a detachment from life. Our findings highlight the differences between patient experiences of recovery following revision arthroplasty, and how this is influenced by the surgical approach and presence or lack of spacers. An understanding of lived experiences following one- and two-stage surgical interventions will complement knowledge about the clinical effectiveness of these different types of revision surgery