The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12891-017-1499-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Approximately 88,000 primary hip replacements are performed in England and Wales each year. Around 1% go on to develop deep prosthetic joint infection. Between one-stage and two-stage revision arthroplasty best treatment options remain unclear. Our aims were to characterise consultant orthopaedic surgeons’ decisions about performing either one-stage or two-stage revision surgery for patients with deep prosthetic infection (PJI) after hip arthroplasty, and to identify whether a randomised trial comparing one-stage with two-stage revision would be feasible.
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 consultant surgeons who perform revision surgery for PJI after hip arthroplasty at 5 high-volume National Health Service (NHS) orthopaedic departments in England and Wales. Surgeons were interviewed before the development of a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Data were analysed using a thematic approach.
There is no single standardised surgical intervention for the treatment of PJI. Surgeons balance multiple factors when choosing a surgical strategy which include multiple patient-related factors, their own knowledge and expertise, available infrastructure and the infecting organism. Surgeons questioned whether it was appropriate that the two-stage revision remained the best treatment, and some surgeons' willingness to consider more one-stage revisions had increased over recent years and were influenced by growing evidence showing equivalence between surgical techniques, and local observations of successful one-stage revisions. Custom-made articulating spacers was a practice that enabled uncertainty to be managed in the absence of definitive evidence about the superiority of one surgical technique over the other. Surgeons highlighted the need for research evidence to inform practice and thought that a randomised trial to compare treatments was needed. Most surgeons thought that patients who they treated would be eligible for trial participation in instances where there was uncertainty about the best treatment option.
Surgeons highlighted the need for evidence to support their choice of revision. Some surgeons' willingness to consider one-stage revision for infection had increased over time, largely influenced by evidence of successful one-stage revisions. Custom-made articulating spacers also enabled surgeons to manage uncertainty about the superiority of surgical techniques. Surgeons thought that a prospective randomised controlled trial comparing one-stage with two-stage joint replacement is needed and that randomisation would be feasible.
Additional file 1: Infection after total joint replacement: Surgeon Topic Guide. Interview topic guide used by the researcher during interviews with surgeons. (DOCX 21 kb)12891_2017_1499_MOESM1_ESM.docx
National Joint Registry Reports. Retrieved from http://www.njrreports.org.uk/hips-all-procedures-activity. Accessed 27 Mar 2017.
Masters JP, Smith NA, Foguet P, Reed M, Parsons H, Sprowson AP. A systematic review of the evidence for single stage and two stage revision of infected knee replacement. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013;14:1. CrossRef
Masri BA, Kendall RW, Duncan CP, Beauchamp CP, McGraw RW, Bora B. Two-stage exchange arthroplasty using a functional antibiotic-loaded spacer in the treatment of the infected knee replacement: the Vancouver experience. Semin Arthroplasty. 1994;5:122–36. PubMed
Cahill JL, Shadbolt B, Scarvell JM, et al. Quality of life after infection in total joint replacement. J Orthop Surg. 2008;16:58. CrossRef
Beswick AD, Elvers KT, Smith AJ, Gooberman-Hill R, Lovering A, Blom AW. What is the evidence base to guide surgical treatment of infected hip prostheses? systematic review of longitudinal studies in unselected patients. BMC Med. 2012;10:1. CrossRef
NJR. National joint registry for England and Wales: 10th annual report. Hemel Hempstead: NJR Centre; 2013. p. 2013.
MRC. UK Developing and evaluating complex interventions: new guidance. London: Medical Research Council; 2008.
Creswell JW. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc; 2007.
Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L. How many interviews are enough? an experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods. 2006;18:59–82. CrossRef
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101. CrossRef
Freedman B. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N Engl J Med. 1987;17:141–5. CrossRef
Lenguerrand E, Whitehouse MR, Beswick A, Jones S, Porter M, Toms A, Blom AW. Increasing burden of infection and risk of early revision following hip and knee replacement: evidence from the national joint registry for England and Wales. Bone Joint J. 2017;99-B(Supplement 1):65. Retrieved from http://www.bjjprocs.boneandjoint.org.uk/content/99-B/SUPP_1/65. Accessed 09 Jan 2017.
Matthews PC, Berendt AR, McNally MA, Byren I. Clinical review - diagnosis and management of prosthetic joint infection. BMJ. 2009;338:1378–83. CrossRef
O’Cathain A, Thomas KJ, Drabble SJ, Rudolph A, Hewison J. What can qualitative research do for randomised controlled trials? a systematic mapping review. BMJ Open. 2012;3:e002889. CrossRef
- Managing uncertainty - a qualitative study of surgeons’ decision-making for one-stage and two-stage revision surgery for prosthetic hip joint infection
Andrew J. Moore
Ashley W. Blom
Michael R. Whitehouse
- BioMed Central
Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie
Mail Icon II