Aims. Debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) is a widely accepted form of surgical treatment for patients with an early periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after primary arthroplasty. The outcome of DAIR after revision arthroplasty, however, has not been reported. The aim of this study was to report the success rate of DAIR after revision arthroplasty with a follow-up of two years. Methods. This retrospective study, conducted at the Sint Maartenskliniek, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, included 88 patients who underwent DAIR within 90 days of revision total hip or total knee arthroplasty between 2012 and 2019. Details of the surgical procedures and PJI were collected. Univariate analysis and a subgroup analysis of the culture-positive group were performed. Kaplan-Meier survivorship curves were constructed. Results. The overall success rate of DAIR, with respect to the retention of components and the cure of infection, was 68% after two years. DAIR performed with an interval of > 30 days after the index revision procedure (odds ratio (OR) 0.24 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08 to 0.72); p = 0.008), a repeated DAIR within 90 days (OR 0.37 (95% CI 0.14 to 0.97); p = 0.040), and the use of an immunosuppressive agent (OR 0.13 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.67); p = 0.012) were associated with a significantly reduced success rate. In the culture-positive group, a mismatch between the antibiotic treatment and the susceptibility of the organism was associated with a significantly lower success rate (OR 0.13 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.62); p = 0.007). Conclusion. DAIR is an acceptable form of surgical treatment for patients with a suspected early PJI after revision arthroplasty of the hip or knee. DAIRs performed after a prolonged interval, multiple DAIRs, and antibiotic mismatches were significantly associated with an increased risk of failure. Optimization of the host immune response and the prevention of antibiotic mismatch are modifiable factors that may improve the outcome. The high rate of mismatches was an important finding, underlining the need for a review of the local microbiological data, which might improve the outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(4):464–471

Aims. Debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) remains one option for the treatment of acute periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) despite imperfect success rates. Intraosseous (IO) administration of vancomycin results in significantly increased local bone and tissue concentrations compared to systemic antibiotics alone. The purpose of this study was to evaluate if the addition of a single dose of IO regional antibiotics to our protocol at the time of DAIR would improve outcomes. Methods. A retrospective case series of 35 PJI TKA patients, with a median age of 67 years (interquartile range (IQR) 61 to 75), who underwent DAIR combined with IO vancomycin (500 mg), was performed with minimum 12 months' follow-up. A total of 26 patients with primary implants were treated for acute perioperative or acute haematogenous infections. Additionally, nine patients were treated for chronic infections with components that were considered unresectable. Primary outcome was defined by no reoperations for infection, nor clinical signs or symptoms of PJI. Results. Mean follow-up for acute infection was 16.5 months (12.1 to 24.2) and 15.8 months (12 to 24.8) for chronic infections with unresectable components. Overall non-recurrence rates for acute infection was 92.3% (24/26) but only 44.4% (4/9) for chronic infections with unresectable components. The majority of patients remained on suppressive oral antibiotics. Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) host grade was a significant indicator of failure (p < 0.001). Conclusion. The addition of IO vancomycin at the time of DAIR was shown to be safe with improved results compared to current literature using standard DAIR without IO antibiotic administration. Use of this technique in chronic infections should be applied with caution. While these results are encouraging, this technique requires longer follow-up before widespread adoption. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):185–190

Aims. Current treatments of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) are minimally effective against Staphylococcus aureus biofilm. A murine PJI model of debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) was used to test the hypothesis that PlySs2, a bacteriophage-derived lysin, can target S. aureus biofilm and address the unique challenges presented in this periprosthetic environment. Methods. The ability of PlySs2 and vancomycin to kill biofilm and colony-forming units (CFUs) on orthopaedic implants were compared using in vitro models. An in vivo murine PJI model of DAIR was used to assess the efficacy of a combination of PlySs2 and vancomycin on periprosthetic bacterial load. Results. PlySs2 treatment reduced 99% more CFUs and 75% more biofilm compared with vancomycin in vitro. A combination of PlySs2 and vancomycin in vivo reduced the number of CFUs on the surface of implants by 92% and in the periprosthetic tissue by 88%. Conclusion. PlySs2 lysin was able to reduce biofilm, target planktonic bacteria, and work synergistically with vancomycin in our in vitro models. A combination of PlySs2 and vancomycin also reduced bacterial load in periprosthetic tissue and on the surface of implants in a murine model of DAIR treatment for established PJI. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7 Supple B):3–10

Aim. Debridement Antibiotics and Implant Retention(DAIR) is a procedure to treat a periprosthetic joint infection(PJI) after Total Hip Arthroplasty(THA) or Total Knee Arthroplasty(TKA). The timing between the primary procedure and the DAIR is likely a determinant for its successful outcome. There are few retrospective studies correlating timing of a DAIR with success (1,2). However, the optimal timing of a DAIR and the chance of success still remains unclear. We aimed to assess the risk of re-revision within one year after a DAIR procedure and to evaluate the timing of the DAIR in primary THA and TKA. An estimation of the chance of a successful DAIR will help clinicians and patients in their decision-making process in case of an acute postoperative PJI. Method. We used data from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register(LROI) and selected all primary THA and TKA in the period 2007–2016 who underwent a DAIR within 12 weeks after primary procedure. A DAIR was defined as a revision for infection in which only modular parts were exchanged. A DAIR was successful if not followed by a re-revision within 1 year after DAIR. The analyses were separated for THA and TKA procedures. Results. 207 DAIRs were performed <4 weeks after THA of which 41(20%) received a re-revision within 1 year; 87 DAIRs were performed between 4–8 weeks of which 15(17%) were re-revised and 11 DAIRs were performed >8 weeks and 2(18%) received a re-revision. 126 DAIRs were performed <4 weeks after TKA of which 27(21%) received a re-revision within 1 year; 68 DAIRs were performed between 4–8 weeks of which 14(21%) were re-revised and 15 DAIRs were performed >8 weeks and 3(20%) received a re-revision. Conclusions. There was no difference in 1-year re-revision rate after a DAIR procedure by timing of DAIR procedure for total hip and knee arthroplasty based on Dutch registry data

Aims. Fracture-related infection (FRI) is commonly classified based on the time of onset of symptoms. Early infections (< two weeks) are treated with debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR). For late infections (> ten weeks), guidelines recommend implant removal due to tolerant biofilms. For delayed infections (two to ten weeks), recommendations are unclear. In this study we compared infection clearance and bone healing in early and delayed FRI treated with DAIR in a rabbit model. Methods. Staphylococcus aureus was inoculated into a humeral osteotomy in 17 rabbits after plate osteosynthesis. Infection developed for one week (early group, n = 6) or four weeks (delayed group, n = 6) before DAIR (systemic antibiotics: two weeks, nafcillin + rifampin; four weeks, levofloxacin + rifampin). A control group (n = 5) received revision surgery after four weeks without antibiotics. Bacteriology of humerus, soft-tissue, and implants was performed seven weeks after revision surgery. Bone healing was assessed using a modified radiological union scale in tibial fractures (mRUST). Results. Greater bacterial burden in the early group compared to the delayed and control groups at revision surgery indicates a retraction of the infection from one to four weeks. Infection was cleared in all animals in the early and delayed groups at euthanasia, but not in the control group. Osteotomies healed in the early group, but bone healing was significantly compromised in the delayed and control groups. Conclusion. The duration of the infection from one to four weeks does not impact the success of infection clearance in this model. Bone healing, however, is impaired as the duration of the infection increases. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2024;13(3):127–135

Aims. Although low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) combined with disinfectants has been shown to effectively eliminate portions of biofilm in vitro, its efficacy in vivo remains uncertain. Our objective was to assess the antibiofilm potential and safety of LIPUS combined with 0.35% povidone-iodine (PI) in a rat debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) model of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Methods. A total of 56 male Sprague-Dawley rats were established in acute PJI models by intra-articular injection of bacteria. The rats were divided into four groups: a Control group, a 0.35% PI group, a LIPUS and saline group, and a LIPUS and 0.35% PI group. All rats underwent DAIR, except for Control, which underwent a sham procedure. General status, serum biochemical markers, weightbearing analysis, radiographs, micro-CT analysis, scanning electron microscopy of the prostheses, microbiological analysis, macroscope, and histopathology evaluation were performed 14 days after DAIR. Results. The group with LIPUS and 0.35% PI exhibited decreased levels of serum biochemical markers, improved weightbearing scores, reduced reactive bone changes, absence of viable bacteria, and decreased inflammation compared to the Control group. Despite the greater antibiofilm activity observed in the PI group compared to the LIPUS and saline group, none of the monotherapies were successful in preventing reactive bone changes or eliminating the infection. Conclusion. In the rat model of PJI treated with DAIR, LIPUS combined with 0.35% PI demonstrated stronger antibiofilm potential than monotherapy, without impairing any local soft-tissue. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2024;13(7):332–341

Aims. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess the association between exchange of modular parts in debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) procedure and outcomes for hip and knee periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Methods. We conducted a systematic search on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane library from inception until May 2021. Random effects meta-analyses and meta-regression was used to estimate, on a study level, the success rate of DAIR related to component exchange. Risk of bias was appraised using the (AQUILA) checklist. Results. We included 65 studies comprising 6,630 patients. The pooled overall success after DAIR for PJI was 67% (95% confidence interval (CI) 63% to 70%). This was 70% (95% CI 65% to 75%) for DAIR for hip PJI and 63% (95% CI 58% to 69%) for knee PJI. In studies before 2004 (n = 27), our meta-regression analysis showed a 3.5% increase in success rates for each 10% increase in component exchange in DAIR for hip PJI and a 3.1% increase for each 10% increase in component exchange for knee PJI. When restricted to studies after 2004 (n = 37), this association changed: for DAIR for hip PJI a decrease in successful outcome by 0.5% for each 10% increase in component exchange and for DAIR for knee PJI this was a 0.01% increase in successful outcome for each 10% increase in component exchange. Conclusion. This systematic review and meta-regression found no benefit of modular component exchange on reduction of PJI failure. This limited effect should be weighed against the risks for the patient and cost on a case-by-case basis. The association between exchange of modular components and outcome changed before and after 2004. This suggests the effect seen after 2004 may reflect a more rigorous, evidence-based, approach to the infected implant compared to the years before. Level of Evidence: Level III. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(10):806–812

Aims. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) occurs in approximately 1% to 2% of total knee arthroplasties (TKA) presenting multiple challenges, such as difficulty in diagnosis, technical complexity, and financial costs. Two-stage exchange is the gold standard for treating PJI but emerging evidence suggests 'two-in-one' single-stage revision as an alternative, delivering comparable outcomes, reduced morbidity, and cost-effectiveness. This study investigates five-year results of modified single-stage revision for treatment of PJI following TKA with bone loss. Methods. Patients were identified from prospective data on all TKA patients with PJI following the primary procedure. Inclusion criteria were: revision for PJI with bone loss requiring reconstruction, and a minimum five years’ follow-up. Patients were followed up for recurrent infection and assessment of function. Tools used to assess function were Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and American Knee Society Score (AKSS). Results. A total of 24 patients were included with a mean age of 72.7 years (SD 7.6), mean BMI of 33.3 kg/m. 2. (SD 5.7), and median ASA grade of 2 (interquartile range 2 to 4). Mean time from primary to revision was 3.0 years (10 months to 8.3 years). At revision, six patients had discharging sinus and three patients had negative cultures from tissue samples or aspirates. Two patients developed recurrence of infection: one was treated successfully with antibiotic suppression and one underwent debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention. Mean AKSS scores at two years showed significant improvement from baseline (27.1 (SD 10.2 ) vs 80.3 (SD 14.8); p < 0.001). There was no significant change in mean AKSS scores between two and five years (80.3 (SD 14.8 ) vs 74.1 (SD 19.8); p = 0.109). Five-year OKS scores were not significantly different compared to two-year scores (36.17 (SD 3.7) vs 33.0 (SD 8.5); p = 0.081). Conclusion. ‘Two-in-one’ single-stage revision is effective for treating PJI following TKA with bone loss, providing patients with sustained improvements in outcomes and infection clearance up to five years post-procedure. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(2):107–113

Aims. Deep surgical site infection (SSI) remains an unsolved problem after hip fracture. Debridement, antibiotic, and implant retention (DAIR) has become a mainstream treatment in elective periprosthetic joint infection; however, evidence for DAIR after infected hip hemiarthroplaty is limited. Methods. Patients who underwent a hemiarthroplasty between March 2007 and August 2018 were reviewed. Multivariable binary logistic regression was performed to identify and adjust for risk factors for SSI, and to identify factors predicting a successful DAIR at one year. Results. A total of 3,966 patients were identified. The overall rate of SSI was 1.7% (51 patients (1.3%) with deep SSI, and 18 (0.45%) with superficial SSI). In all, 50 patients underwent revision surgery for infection (43 with DAIR, and seven with excision arthroplasty). After adjustment for other variables, only concurrent urinary tract infection (odds ratio (OR) 2.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.57 to 4.92; p < 0.001) and increasing delay to theatre for treatment of the fracture (OR 1.31 per day, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.52; p < 0.001) were predictors of developing a SSI, while a cemented arthroplasty was protective (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.96; p = 0.031). In all, nine patients (20.9%) were alive at one year with a functioning hemiarthroplasty following DAIR, 20 (46.5%) required multiple surgical debridements after an initial DAIR, and 18 were converted to an excision arthroplasty due to persistent infection, with six were alive at one year. The culture of any gram-negative organism reduced success rates to 12.5% (no cases were successful with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or Pseudomonas infection). Favourable organisms included Citrobacter and Proteus (100% cure rate). The all-cause mortality at one year after deep SSI was 55.87% versus 24.9% without deep infection. Conclusion. Deep infection remains a devastating complication regardless of the treatment strategy employed. Success rates of DAIR are poor compared to total hip arthroplasty, and should be reserved for favourable organisms in patients able to tolerate multiple surgical procedures. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(11):958–965

Aims

Periprosthetic hip-joint infection is a multifaceted and highly detrimental outcome for patients and clinicians. The incidence of prosthetic joint infection reported within two years of primary hip arthroplasty ranges from 0.8% to 2.1%. Costs of treatment are over five-times greater in people with periprosthetic hip joint infection than in those with no infection. Currently, there are no national evidence-based guidelines for treatment and management of this condition to guide clinical practice or to inform clinical study design. The aim of this study is to develop guidelines based on evidence from the six-year INFection and ORthopaedic Management (INFORM) research programme.

The August 2024 Knee Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Calcification’s role in knee osteoarthritis: implications for surgical decision-making; Lower complication rates and shorter lengths of hospital stay with technology-assisted total knee arthroplasty; Revision surgery: the hidden burden on surgeons; Are preoperative weight loss interventions worthwhile?; Total knee arthroplasty with or without prior bariatric surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis; Aspirin triumphs in knee arthroplasty: a decade of evidence; Efficacy of DAIR in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a glimpse from Oxford.

Aims

The burden of revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) continues to grow. The surgery is complex and associated with significant costs. Regional rTHA networks have been proposed to improve outcomes and to reduce re-revisions, and therefore costs. The aim of this study was to accurately quantify the cost and reimbursement for a rTHA service, and to assess the financial impact of case complexity at a tertiary referral centre within the NHS.

Aims

Here we used a mature seven-day biofilm model of Staphylococcus aureus, exposed to antibiotics up to an additional seven days, to establish the effectiveness of either mechanical cleaning or antibiotics or non-contact induction heating, and which combinations could eradicate S. aureus in mature biofilms.

Aims

The aim of this modified Delphi process was to create a structured Revision Hip Complexity Classification (RHCC) which can be used as a tool to help direct multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussions of complex cases in local or regional revision networks.

Aims

One-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) is gaining popularity. The outcome for a repeat one-stage revision THA after a failed one-stage exchange for infection remains unknown. The aim of this study was to report the infection-free and all-cause revision-free survival of repeat one-stage exchange, and to investigate the association between the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) staging system and further infection-related failure.

Aim. Analysis of microbiological spectrum and resistance patterns as well as the clinical outcome of patients who underwent a Debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) procedure in the early phase following failed two-stage exchange arthroplasty of the knee and hip. Method. Of 312 patients treated with two-stage exchange arthroplasty between January 2011 and December 2019, 16 (5.1%) patients (9 knee, 7 hip) underwent a DAIR procedure within 6 months following second stage. We retrospectively analyzed the microbiological results as well as changes in the microbiological spectrum and antibiotic resistance patterns between stages of two-stage exchange arthroplasties and DAIR procedures. Patient's re-revision rates after a minimum follow-up of 12 months following DAIR procedure were evaluated. Moreover, differences between knee and hip and between infected primary total joint replacement (TJRs) and infected revision TJRs as well as patient's host factors and microbiological results regarding the outcome of DAIR were analyzed. Results. In 7/16 (43.8%) patients the first and second stage procedure was culture positive, in 5/16 (31.2%) patients the first and second stage procedure was culture negative and in 4/16 (25%) patients the first stage procedure was culture positive, and the second stage procedure was culture negative. Moreover, 6 (37.5%) out of 16 DAIR procedures showed a positive microbiological result. In 5/7 (71.4%) patients with culture positive second stage procedure a different microorganism compared to first stage procedure was detected. In 6/6 (100%) patients with culture positive DAIR procedure, the isolated microorganisms were not detected during first or second stage procedure. An additional re-revision surgery was necessary in 4/16 (25%) patients after a median time of 31 months (range, 12 to 138 months) at a mean follow up of 63.1 ± 32 months following DAIR procedure. Highest re-revision rates were found in patients with culture positive second stage procedures (3/7 [42.9%]) and patients with culture positive DAIR procedures (2/6 [33.3%]). Conclusions. DAIR procedure seems to be a useful early treatment option following failed two-stage exchange arthroplasty. The re-revision rates were independent of different combinations of culture positive and culture negative first and second stage procedures. The high number of changes in the microbiological spectrum needs to be considered in the treatment of PJI

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) represents a complex challenge in orthopaedic surgery associated with substantial morbidity and healthcare expenditures. The debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) protocol is a viable treatment, offering several advantages over exchange arthroplasty. With the evolution of treatment strategies, considerable efforts have been directed towards enhancing the efficacy of DAIR, including the development of a phased debridement protocol for acute PJI management. This article provides an in-depth analysis of DAIR, presenting the outcomes of single-stage, two-stage, and repeated DAIR procedures. It delves into the challenges faced, including patient heterogeneity, pathogen identification, variability in surgical techniques, and antibiotics selection. Moreover, critical factors that influence the decision-making process between single- and two-stage DAIR protocols are addressed, including team composition, timing of the intervention, antibiotic regimens, and both anatomical and implant-related considerations. By providing a comprehensive overview of DAIR protocols and their clinical implications, this annotation aims to elucidate the advancements, challenges, and potential future directions in the application of DAIR for PJI management. It is intended to equip clinicians with the insights required to effectively navigate the complexities of implementing DAIR strategies, thereby facilitating informed decision-making for optimizing patient outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(12):1377–1384

Aims. Fracture-Related Infection (FRI) is a severe complication caused by microbial infection of bone. It is imperative to gain more insight into the potentials and limitations of Debridement, Antibiotics and Implant Retention (DAIR) to improve future FRI treatment. The aims of this study were to: 1) determine how time to surgery affects the success rate of DAIR procedures of the lower leg performed within 12 weeks after the initial fracture fixation operation and 2) evaluate whether appropriate systemic antimicrobial therapy affects the success rate of a DAIR procedure. Methods. This multinational retrospective cohort study included patients of at least 18-years of age who developed an FRI of the lower leg within 12 weeks after the initial fracture fixation operation, between January 1st 2015 to July 1st 2020. DAIR success was defined by the absence of recurrence of infection, preservation of the affected limb and retention of implants during the initial treatment. The antimicrobial regimen was considered appropriate if the pathogen(s) was susceptible to the given treatment at the correct dose as per guideline. Logistic regression modelling was used to assess factors that could contribute to the DAIR success rate. Results. A total of 120 patients were included, of whom 70 DAIR patients and 50 non-DAIR patients. Within a median follow-up of 35.5 months, 21.4% of DAIR patients developed a recurrent FRI compared to 12.0% of non-DAIR patients. The DAIR procedure was successful in 45 patients (64.3%). According to the Willenegger and Roth classification, DAIR success was achieved in 66.7% (n=16/24) of patients with an early infection (<2 weeks), 64.4% (n=29/45) of patients with a delayed infection (2–10 weeks) and 0.0% (0/1) of patients with a late infection (>10 weeks). Univariate analysis showed that the duration of infection was not associated with DAIR success in this cohort (p=0.136; OR: 0.977; 95%CI: [0.947–1.007]). However, an appropriate antimicrobial regimen was associated with success of DAIR (p=0.029; OR: 3.231; 95%CI: [1.138–9.506]). Conclusions. Although the results should be interpreted with caution, an increased duration of infection was not associated with a decreased success rate of a DAIR procedure in patients with FRI of the lower leg. The results of this study highlight the multifactorial contribution to the success of a DAIR procedure and emphasize the importance of adequate antimicrobial treatment. Therefore, time to surgery should not be the only key-factor when considering a DAIR procedure to treat FRI

Periprosthetic joint infection is a serious complication of primary total hip replacement (THR) with significant associated morbidity. In acute infection, Debridement, Antibiotics and Implant Retention (DAIR) may be considered. Current national guidelines recommend a DAIR should be performed by “an experienced arthroplasty surgeon┕ but do not specify the need for this to be a revision arthroplasty surgeon. We investigated outcomes in our NHS Trust of DAIR procedures performed by revision and non-revision arthroplasty surgeons. Infection registry data and patient records were analysed for all DAIR procedures of infected primary THRs between 2017 and 2021. Data collected included details of the primary surgery, the presentation with infection, the DAIR procedure and any subsequent complications including return to theatre at any time point. Routinely collected pre- and post-operative patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) were reviewed. 54 periprosthetic joint infections of primary THRs received a DAIR procedure. 41 DAIRs were performed by a revision surgeon and 13 by non-revision surgeons. There was no significant difference in time from primary THR to presentation with infection, time from presentation to DAIR or pre-operative C-reactive protein between the two groups. In 21 (38.9%) patients the DAIR procedure was classed as a treatment failure; 17 patients (31.5%) returned to theatre for further revision surgery, one (2.4%) died related to infection and three (5.6%) had persistent infection but did not receive further surgery. Treatment failure was significantly higher in the non-revision surgeon group (9/13 (69.2%)) than in the revision surgeon group (12/41 (29.3%)) (p = 0.02). Overall, improvement in PROMs after DAIR was seen at both six and 12 months. The overall success rate of DAIR was 61.1% and there was a sustained improvement in PROMs after surgery. However, there was a significant difference in failure rates between revision surgeons and non-revision surgeons

Aims. To compare the functional outcome, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and satisfaction of patients who underwent primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and a single debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) procedure for deep infection, using either the transgluteal or the posterior surgical approach for both procedures. Methods. The study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (ID: NCT03161990) on 15 May 2017. Patients treated with a single DAIR procedure for deep infection through the same operative approach as their primary THA (either the transgluteal or the posterior approach) were identified in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register and given a questionnaire. Median follow-up after DAIR by questionnaire was 5.5 years in the transgluteal group (n = 87) and 2.5 years in the posterior approach group (n = 102). Results. Patients in the posterior approach group were less likely to limp after the DAIR procedure (17% vs 36% limped all the time; p = 0.005), had a higher mean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) function score (80 vs 71; p = 0.013), and were more likely to achieve a patient acceptable symptom state for the WOMAC function score (76% vs 55%; p = 0.002). In a multivariable analysis, the point estimate for the increase in WOMAC function score using the posterior approach was 10.2 (95% CI 3.1 to 17.2; p = 0.005), which is above the minimal clinically important improvement. The patients in the posterior approach group also reported better mean HRQoL scores and were more likely to be satisfied with their hip arthroplasty (77% vs 55%; p = 0.001). Conclusion. In patients treated with a single, successful DAIR procedure for deep infection of a primary THA, the use of the posterior approach in both primary surgery and DAIR was associated with less limping, better functional outcome, better HRQoL, and higher patient satisfaction compared with cases where both were performed using the transgluteal approach. The observed differences in functional outcome and patient satisfaction were clinically relevant. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(12):1662–1669