Background. Around 1% of patients who have hip replacement have deep prosthetic joint infection afterwards. Infection is treated with antibiotics and revision surgery. We aimed to characterise the impact of deep joint infection and its treatment, to identify treatment preferences, and to describe surgeons' treatment decisions. Methods. In a qualitative study in the UK we interviewed 19 patients who had infection after hip replacement and 12 orthopaedic surgeons specialising in infection. Face-to-face interviews with patients explored experience of infection, treatment and recovery. Interviews with surgeons explored treatment decisions. With consent, interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and anonymised. Once imported into QSR NVivo software, data were analysed using constant comparison. Results. Patients with deep joint infection described mobility loss, pain, loss of valued activities, changes to home environments/moving into care, negative impact on personal relationships and financial strain. Physical and psychological trauma was associated with revision surgery and antibiotic treatment. Patients had strong preferences for treatment options, emphasising impact of surgery, side effects of antibiotics and duration of treatment as key considerations. Although eradication of infection was important, patients felt that reducing impact of treatment was high priority and identified a need for more support. Surgeons' treatment decisions focused on patient characteristics and nature of infection to prioritise eradication of infection. During patients' recovery surgeons' were concerned about possible return of infection and patients' mobility and function. Conclusion. Infection after joint replacement causes physical and psychological trauma. Balancing patients' preferences for reducing impact of treatment with surgeons' emphasis on eradication of infection should be an important consideration in care. There is also need to develop new interventions to support patients with infection. Level of evidence. Level 3 – Qualitative Research. Funding statement. This paper presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research scheme (grant number: RP-PG-1210-12005). The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. Ethics. This study has been given a favourable opinion for conduct in the NHS by the National Research Ethics Service Committee South West – Exeter 14/SW/0072

Introduction and Objective. Evidence in literature is contradicting regarding outcomes of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in post-traumatic osteoarthritis (PTOA) and whether they are inferior to TKA in primary osteoarthritis (OA). The aim of this review was to find out if any difference exists in the results of TKA between the two indications. Materials and Methods. The electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Collaboration, and PubMed were searched and screened in duplicate for relevant studies. The selected studies were further subjected to quality assessment using the modified Coleman method. The primary outcome measure was patient reported outcome, and secondary outcome measures were infection, revision, stiffness, and patella tendon rupture. Results. A total of 18 studies involved 1129 patients with a mean age of 60.6 years (range 45.7–69) and follow up of 6.3 years. The time interval from index injury to TKA was 9.1 years. Knee Society Score (KSS) in PTOA reported in 12/18 studies showed functional improvement from 42.5 to 70 post-TKA exceeding minimally clinically important difference. In TKA for primary OA vs PTOA, deep peri-prosthetic joint infection (PJI) was reported in 1.9% vs 5.4% of patients, whilst revision of prosthesis at an average of 6 years post-operatively was performed in 2.6 vs 9.7% of patients. Conclusions. TKA is a successful treatment option for PTOA. However, the risk of significant complications like PJI and implant failure requiring revision is higher than primary OA cases. Patients should be counselled about those risks. Further well-designed comparative cohort-matched studies are needed to compare outcomes between the two populations