John,
That's truly dreadful; I'm so sorry to hear it.
I always say to my patients (I'm a radiologist, not a surgeon), when I'm doing anything interventional, that the chance of this procedure going wrong may only be, for eaxample, 1 in 100, but if you're the one, then all the statistics in the world are irrelevent. You've hit the nail bang on the head in your post.
The only suggestion I could make is to get another opinion. Presumably you went to an experienced surgeon, but even then, there are probably some who are even more so. I'm presuming you live in the States so I can't help with any names there as I'm from the UK. Also, I'm not sure exactly how your system works. In your position, though, I'd research who is the very best opinion in the whole country and see them as a "one off". If they say there's nothing more that can be done then I guess that's it for now, but at least you know you've done the best you can.
As for "turning the clock back" - I still think you made the right decision. If you'd gone straight to thr and that had to be revised that's probably even worse. Granted it may not have needed revision, though, and these words are of no help really.
I'm in a potentially similar position (8 days post resurfacing), in that I had a septic arthritis following an arthrogam earlier this year. Although it was really well treated with 3 months of antibiotics, I'm still more likely to get a further infection, compared with if I hadn't had one in the first place. That risk remains forever, not just in the immediate post op period. My logic was that, if the worst comes to the worst, a resurfacing is much easier to revise than a thr. Even if I only get a few years out of this (but there's no reason why it shouldn't last a good time otherwise) I still think it's the right choice.
I hope the new job works out and wish you all the very best of luck.
Andy