Aims. The number of revision arthroplasties being performed in the elderly is expected to rise, including revision for infection. The primary aim of this study was to measure the treatment success rate for octogenarians undergoing revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) compared to a younger cohort. Secondary outcomes were complications and mortality. Methods. Patients undergoing one- or two-stage revision of a primary THA for PJI between January 2008 and January 2021 were identified. Age, sex, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), McPherson systemic host grade, and causative organism were collated for all patients. PJI was classified as ‘confirmed’, ‘likely’, or ‘unlikely’ according to the 2021 European Bone and Joint Infection Society criteria. Primary outcomes were complications, reoperation, re-revision, and successful treatment of PJI. A total of 37 patients aged 80 years or older and 120 patients aged under 80 years were identified. The octogenarian group had a significantly lower BMI and significantly higher CCI and McPherson systemic host grades compared to the younger cohort. Results. The majority of patients were planned to undergo two-stage revision, although a significantly higher proportion of the octogenarians did not proceed with the second stage (38.7% (n = 12) vs 14.8% (n = 16); p = 0.003). Although there was some evidence of a lower complication rate in the younger cohort, this did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.065). No significant difference in reoperation (21.6% (n = 8) vs 25.0% (n = 30); p = 0.675) or re-revision rate (8.1% (n = 3) vs 16.7% (n = 20); p = 0.288) was identified between the groups. There was no difference in treatment success between groups (octogenarian 89.2% (n = 33) vs control 82.5% (n = 99); p = 0.444). Conclusion. When compared to a younger cohort, octogenarians did not show a significant difference in complication, re-revision, or treatment success rates. However, given they are less likely to be eligible to proceed with second stage revision, consideration should be given to either single-stage revision or use of an articulated spacer to maximize functional outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(8):802–807

Treatment of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) can include local delivery of antibiotics. A frequently used medium is absorbable calcium sulphate beads. The aims of this study were to:. identify how often organisms in infected THRs are sensitive to the added antibiotics. establish the incidence of persistent wound discharge and hypercalcaemia. All patients who received an antibiotic loaded calcium sulphate carrier (Stimulan, Biocomposites, Keele, UK) for either confirmed infection, presumed infection or for prophylaxis between July 2015 and July 2020 were included. Stimulan use was at the discretion of the surgeon, and between 10 and 40cc was used. In the absence of a known organism we routinely used 1g vancomycin and 240mg gentamicin per 10 cc of calcium sulphate. Post-operative sensitivities for all organisms cultured were compared to the antibiotics delivered locally. Persistent wound drainage was defined as discharge beyond the third postoperative day. Patients had serum calcium measured if they developed symptoms consistent with hypercalcaemia (Ca >2.6 mmol/L) or the clinical team felt they were at high risk. 189 patients (mean age 66.9 years, mean BMI 28.9, 85 male, 104 female) were included. 11 patients had a native joint septic arthritis, 42 presented with acute PJI and 136 presented with chronic PJI. 133 patients grew an organism, of which 126 were sensitive to the added antibiotics. Of the seven patients with resistant growth five had vancomycin-resistent Enterococcus, one Pseudomonas and one multi-organism growth including coagulase negative Staphylococcus. 40 patients experienced persistent wound discharge, with eight requiring re-operation. All other cases settled with dressing management. 12 patients developed hypercalcaemia (3/64 10cc, 7/117 20cc, 0/2 30cc and 2/6 40cc). The peak calcium reading ranged between the second and twelfth post-operative day. The addition of vancomycin and gentamicin to absorbable calcium sulphate covers the majority of organisms found in culture positive infection in our cohort. It also appears safe, with an acceptable incidence of hypercalcaemia or wound discharge. Further work is required to identify patients at greatest risk of culturing resistant organisms or delayed wound healing

No single test has demonstrated absolute accuracy in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Leukocyte esterase (LE) is a synovial marker that has proven utility in the diagnosis of PJI. The purpose of this prospective study was to (1) identify the optimal cutoff for the use of LE in the diagnosis of PJI and (2) determine whether performance of the LE strip test varied by infecting organism. This prospective study enrolled 1,015 patients undergoing hip or knee revision arthroplasty at a single institution from 2009 to September 2021. PJI was defined using a modified version of 2018 International Consensus Meeting (ICM) criteria that excluded LE when calculating the ICM score. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to assess the utility of the LE strip test in the diagnosis of PJI. 973 patients were included in the analyses. 246 (25.4%) were classified as ICM-positive and 727 (74.6%) were classified as ICM-negative. An LE cutoff of “1+” (AUC 0.819, sensitivity 73.2%, specificity 90.6%) had superior accuracy to an LE cutoff of “2+” (AUC 0.713, sensitivity 43.9%, specificity 98.8%) in the overall diagnosis of PJI (p<0.001). When stratifying by organism type, an LE cutoff of “1+” had the best diagnostic utility for PJI caused by methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (AUC 0.888, sensitivity 87.0%, n=23) followed by Streptococcus spp. (AUC 0.882, sensitivity 85.7%, n=28), coagulase negative Staphylococci (AUC 0.836, sensitivity 76.6%, n=47), methicillin sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (AUC 0.806, sensitivity 70.6%, n=34), culture negative (AUC 0.793, sensitivity 67.9%, n=56), and gram negative rods (AUC 0.763, sensitivity 61.9%, n=21). To our knowledge, this is the largest study evaluating the utility of the LE strip test in the diagnosis of PJI. Based on our findings, it appears that a “1+” cutoff has higher diagnostic utility than a cutoff of “2+”

The benefits of cell salvage autotransfusion are well reported. There is a common non-evidenced belief amongst revision arthroplasty surgeons that auto-transfusion is potentially contraindicated in infected revisions. The aim is to study the immediate and delayed outcomes of using cell saver on patients undergoing PJI surgery. Prospective cohort service evaluation registered with the local audit department. 20 PJI cases in 18 patients where cell saver was used over a period of 4 years. Intraoperative fluid and tissue samples were taken for culture. Blood culture from salvaged blood pre and post leucodepletion filter were sent for microbiological analysis. Data on type of surgery, blood loss, further allogenic transfusion and SIRS response was collected. Success of infection clearance was assessed using 2019 MSIS ORT. Five patients receiving autologous blood in non-infection cases were used as controls. Mean age for the PJI group was 67.7 years, 67% female. 11 patients (67%) had 1st stage surgery and 5 (25%) underwent 2nd stage whereas 4 patients had single stage surgery. The mean calculated blood loss was 1398 mls (range 400–3000mls). 6 Patients required further allogenic transfusion. 16 patients received blood via a leuco-depletion filter. The same organism grown from tissues was identified in post-filter blood in 8/17 patients (47%). 2/20 have grown a different organism in post-filtered blood, _P.Acne._. 2 patients developed SIRS upon auto-transfusion, however one was thought to be secondary to cementing. The control group had 443 mls mean amount of blood loss and 1 patient developed a SIRS response. 14/20 (70%) patients had successful clearance of infection (tier 1) 2 patients died prior to undergoing 2nd stage. Using cell saver did not impact main outcome of infection clearance in PJI surgery. We would advocate its routine usage whilst avoiding direct collection of heavily contaminated blood

Literature debates whether fluid aspirates for suspected PJI should undergo prolonged incubation for cultures. We looked at sensitivity and specificity of 14-day cultures, compared to 7-days, for aspirates from prosthetic hips and knees. Design and methods. Conducted at a quaternary referral centre for PJIs from Jan 2017 to July 2019. Suspected PJIs who underwent aspiration, incubated 14 days and later surgical intervention with minimum three tissue samples were included. Results. 176 aspirates were included. This is an increased number compared to our historic figures (average 88 Vs 48 pts/yr). 47 patients had fluid and tissue positive (true positive), 20 fluid +ive but tissue -ive (false positive), 98 fluid and tissue -ive (true negative) and 15 fluid negative but tissue +ive (False negative). Thus, sensitivity 76%, specificity 83%, positive predictive value70% and negative predictive value 87%. Of 88 positive aspirates, only 75% were within 7-day cultures. Low virulence organisms as Propionibacterium acnes and coagulase negative staph were grown later. Of 48 with only one tissue sample positive, 38 were culture-negative on aspiration and 6 grew different organisms on aspirate and tissues. Also, as many were cultured later, it suggests contamination. Conclusion. Increased numbers reflect quaternary referral nature of institution and increasing PJI load. Modest drop in sensitivity and specificity of 14-day cultures compared to 7-day(84 and 85% respectively) is due to higher false negatives. Contamination contributes to false-ive as more tissue samples become positive (there were 1076 tissue samples due to multiple sampling Vs 176 aspirates). Higher tissue yield may also be because they are more representative. Effect of antibiotic use between samples cannot be determined. Organism profile suggest14-day culture produces more contaminant growth despite a well-equipped microbiology lab with laminar airflow for subcultures. Caution in interpreting 14-day results in diagnosis of PJI of Hip and Knee is advised

Two-stage exchange arthroplasty is traditionally used to treat periprosthetic hip infection. Nevertheless, particularly in high-risk patients, there has been increased attention towards alternatives such as 1.5-stage exchange arthroplasty which takes place in one surgery. Therefore, we sought to compare (1) operative time, length-of-stay (LOS), transfusions, (2) causative organism identification and polymicrobial infection rates, (3) re-revision rates and re-revision reasons, (4) mortality, and determine (5) independent predictors of re-revision. Retrospective chart review of 71 patients who underwent either 1.5- (n=38) or 2-stage (n=33) exchange hip arthroplasty at a single institution (03/2019-05/2023). Demographics, surgical, inpatient, and infection characteristics were noted. Main outcomes evaluated were re-revision rates, re-revision reasons, mortality, and cause of death. Independent predictors of re-revision were assessed utilizing logistic regression. Mean follow: 675 days (range, 23–1,715). Demographics were not significantly different except for a higher proportion of 1.5-stage patients classified as American-Society-of-Anesthesiologists (ASA) status 3 or 4 (84.2 vs. 48.5%, p=0.002). Length of follow-up was significantly longer in the 2-stage group (924.4 vs. 458 days, p<0.001) as well as operative time (506 vs. 271 minutes, p<0.001). In the 1.5-stage group, there was a higher proportion of polymicrobial infections (23.7 vs. 3.0%, p=0.016), re-revision rates (28.9 vs. 9.1%, p=0.042) and periprosthetic infections as a cause of revision (90.9 vs. 0%, p=0.007). Mortality rates were not significantly different, and no patient died for causes related to infection. Type of surgery (1.5-stage vs. 2-stage) was the only independent predictor of re-revision (odds-ratio 4.0, 95% confidence-interval 1.02–16.16, p=0.046). Our data suggests that patients who undergo 1.5-stage exchange arthroplasty have a significantly higher re-revision rate (mostly due to infection) when compared to 2-stage patients. We acknowledge potential benefits of the 1.5-stage strategy, especially in high-risk patients since it involves single surgery. However, higher re-revision rates must be considered when counseling patients

Aims. Single-stage revision is not widely pursued due to restrictive inclusion criteria. In this study, we evaluated the results of single-stage revision of chronically infected total hip arthroplasty (THA) using broad inclusion criteria and cementless implants. Patients and Methods. Between 2010 and 2016, 126 patients underwent routine single-stage revision with cementless reconstruction with powdered vancomycin or imipenem poured into the medullary cavity and re-implantation of cementless components. For patients with a culture-negative hip, fungal infections, and multidrug-resistant organisms, a direct intra-articular infusion of pathogen-sensitive antibiotics was performed postoperatively. Recurrence of infection and clinical outcomes were evaluated. Three patients died and 12 patients (none with known recurrent infection) were lost to follow-up. There were 111 remaining patients (60 male, 51 female) with a mean age of 58.7 (. sd. 12.7; 20 to 79). Results. Of these 111 patients, 99 (89.2%) were free of infection at a mean follow-up time of 58 months (24 to 107). A recurrent infection was observed in four of the 23 patients (17.4%) with culture-negative infected hip. The success rate in patients with multidrug-resistant organisms was 84.2% (16/19). The mean postoperative Harris hip score was 79.6 points (63 to 92) at the most recent assessment. Conclusion. Routine single-stage revision with cementless reconstruction can be a viable option for the treatment of chronically infected THA. The results of this study will add to the growing body of evidence supporting routine use of single-stage revision for the treatment of chronically infected THA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:396–402

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is a well-established technique for amplification and sequencing of DNA and has recently gained much attention in many fields of medicine. Our aim was to evaluate the ability of NGS in identifying the causative organism(s) in patients with periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). In this prospective study samples were collected from 78 revision total hip arthroplasties. Synovial fluid, deep tissue and swabs were obtained at the time of surgery and shipped to the laboratory for NGS analysis. Deep tissue specimens were also sent to the institutional lab for culture. PJI was diagnosed using the Musculoskeletal infection society (MSIS) definition of PJI. Thirty-four revisions were considered infected; culture was positive in 25 of these (25/34, 73.5%), while NGS was positive in 26 (26/34, 76.4%). Among the positive cultures, complete concordance between NGS and culture in 21 cases (21/25, 84.0%). 4 cases were discordant. Among these cases, 3 cases were culture-positive and NGS-negative, while 1 was both positive on NGS and culture for disparate organisms. Among the 9 cases of culture-negative PJI(CN-PJI), NGS was able to identify an organism in 4 cases (4/9, 44.4%). The remaining 5 cases were negative on both NGS and culture (5/9, 55.6%). Forty-four revisions were considered to be aseptic; NGS exclusively identified microbes in 7 of 44 “aseptic” revisions (15.9%) and culture exclusively isolated an organism in 3 of 44 cases (6.8%). Both NGS and culture were positive in 1 of case however the result was discordant. The remaining cases (33/44, 75.0%) were both NGS and culture negative. NGS detected several organisms in most positive samples, with a greater number of organisms detected in aseptic compared to septic cases (7 vs. 3.7, respectively). NGS may be a promising technique for identifying the infecting organism in PJI. Our findings suggest that some cases of PJI may be polymicrobial that escape detection using conventional culture

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) causes significant morbidity. Methicillin sensitive . Staphylococcus Aureus. (MSSA) is the most frequent organism, and the majority are endogenous. Nasal MSSA colonisation is a proven risk factor for S. aureus infection. Decolonisation reduces PJIs but there is a paucity of evidence comparing treatments. Aims; compare 3 nasal decolonisation treatments at (1) achieving MSSA decolonisation, (2) preventing PJI. Our hospital trust introduced MSSA screening and decolonisation prior to hip and knee arthroplasty in 2010. Data was prospectively collected since 2013, including all MSSA carriers, decolonisation treatment received, MSSA status at time of surgery and all PJIs. Prior to 2017 MSSA carriers received nasal mupirocin or neomycin, from August 2017 until August 2019 nasal octenidine was used. During the study period 15,958 primary hip and knee replacements were performed. 3,200 (20.1%) were MSSA positive at preoperative screening and received decolonisation treatment, 698 mupirocin, 1,210 neomycin and 1,221 octenidine. Mupirocin (89.1%) and neomycin (90.9%) were more effective at decolonisation than octenidine (50.0%, P<0.0001). There was no difference in S. aureus PJI rates (P=0.452). Of those negative at original screening 9.1% were positive on the day of surgery (1,164/12,758). MSSA decolonisation is an effective method to decrease PJI rates but there is little research into the best treatment. Both mupirocin and neomycin are more effective than octenidine at achieving MSSA decolonisation. There was poor correlation between the MSSA status after treatment and PJI rates. There is debate if treatment should be targeted by screening or if all patients she be treated without screening. Global decolonisation without screening is supported by the 26.7% of carriers that were negative at original screening in our study. Further research is needed comparing decolonisation treatments to reduce PJI rates and avoid the risk of drug resistance

Although single-stage revision has attracted a lot of attention due to less socioeconomic cost, this technique is not widely used throughout the world due to strict indications. In this situation, we report our outcome on single-stage revision combined with selective direct intra-articular antibiotic infusion for chronic infected THA, especially for patients with culture-negative hip, fungal infections and multidrug-resistant organism. We retrospectively reviewed 131 patients with chronic infected THA between January 2010 and February 2017 who underwent single-stage revision, including soakage of surgical area with 0.5% aqueous betadine, pouring powdered vancomycin or imipenem into the medullary cavity. For patients with culture-negative hip, fungal infections and multidrug-resistant organism, a direct intra-articular infusion of pathogens-sensitive antibiotics via three-branch catheter were performed postoperatively. Recurrence of infection and clinical outcomes were evaluated. One hundred and fifteen patients were followed-up for an average of 4.5 years (range, 1.2–8 years). Of the 115 patients, 103 patients (89.6%) required no additional surgical or medical treatment for recurrence of infection. A recurrent infection was observed in 4 of the 23 patients (17.4%) with culture-negative infected hip. One of 4 fungal infections was relapse and the success rate in patients with multidrug-resistant organism was 84.2% (16/19). The mean postoperative Harris hip score was 81 points (63 to 92; p < 0.05) at the most recent assessment. Treatment of chronic infected THA by single-stage revision combined with selective direct intra-articular antibiotic infusion can be fairly effective, even for patients with relative “contraindication” of this approach

No single test is 100% sensitive and specific for the diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection. Joint aspiration is currently the only preoperative investigation that can establish the identity of the infecting organism and its antibiotic susceptibilities. Frequently when attempting to aspirate a joint a ‘dry tap occurs as fluid cannot be aspirated. In this situation, normal saline may be injected into the joint and then reaspirated to provide fluid for culture. The aim of this study was to ascertain the diagnostic accuracy of culture of joint aspiratie with or without saline reaspiration in the event of a dry tap. A retrospective analysis of 580 hip and knee aspirations in patients deemed to have moderate-high risk of infection and ultimately proceeded to revision arthroplasty over 12 years at a large quaternary referral centre where pre operative aspiration is routine. Fluid was aspirated in 313 (54%) cases and dry taps in which saline injection reaspiration was performed occurred in 267 (46%) cases. Overall sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic aspiration were 84% (78–89%) and 85% (81–88%) respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of saline injection-reaspiration after dry tap were 87% (79–82%) and 79% (72–84%) compared to 81% (71–88%) and 90% (85–93%) for direct aspiration. Pre operative joint aspiration and culture is a sensitive and specific test for the confirmation of diagnosis in patients at a moderate to high risk of prosthetic joint infection. Culture of saline injection-reaspiration also provides accurate diagnostic information in the event of a dry tap. Both methods allow susceptibility testing of relevant organisms and are therefore able to guide peri-operative and cement instilled antibiotic therapy. Culture of pre operative joint aspirates provides sensitive and specific diagnostic information including antimicrobial susceptibility results. Saline injection-reaspiration is a useful additional technique in those patients in whom fluid cannot be aspirated

When using a staged approach to eradicate chronic infection after total hip replacement, systemic delivery of antibiotics after the first stage is often employed for an extended period of typically six weeks together with the use of an in situ antibiotic-eluting polymethylmethacrylate interval spacer. We report our multi-surgeon experience of 43 consecutive patients (44 hips) who received systemic vancomycin for two weeks in combination with a vancomycin- and gentamicin-eluting spacer system in the course of a two-stage revision procedure for deep infection with a median follow-up of 49 months (25 to 83). The antibiotic-eluting articulating spacers fractured in six hips (13.9%) and dislocated in five patients (11.6%). Successful elimination of the infecting organisms occurred in 38 (92.7%) of 41 hips with three patients developing superinfection with a new organism. We conclude that prolonged systemic antibiotic therapy may not be essential in the two-stage treatment of a total hip replacement for Gram-positive infection, provided that a high concentration of antibiotics is delivered locally using an antibiotic-eluting system

Two-stage reconstruction with total implant removal and re-implantation after infection control is considered the gold standard treatment forinfection after hip arthroplasty. However, removal of the well-fixed stem or cup may cause substantial bone loss and other complications, thereby making reconstruction difficult. We evaluated whether an infection posttotal hip arthroplasty can be treated without removal of the radiographically and clinically well-fixed femoral stem or acetabular cup. Patients with a chronic infection aftertotal hip arthroplasty, with a radiographically well-fixed, cementless stem or cup, were selected. During the first surgical stage, we retained the stem or cup if we were unable to removethese with a stem or cup extractor. An antibiotic-impregnated cement spacer was then implanted. After control of infection (C-reactive proteinlevel within normal value), we performed the secondstage of re-implantation surgery. Treatment failure was defined as uncontrolled infection requiringremoval of the retained implant. From January 2004 to December 2013, 16 patients underwent partial component-retained 2-stage reconstruction. Thirteen patients (81.3%) were free of infection, with a mean follow-up time of 5 years. The remaining 3 patients, who had high-risk comorbidities and, of whom, 2 were infected by high-virulence organism, had uncontrolled infection and required furthersurgery to remove the retained implant. We conclude that partial component-retained 2-stage reconstruction could be an alternative treatment option for chronic infection afteran uncemented total hip arthroplasty with a radiographically and clinically well-fixed component in selected patients, who are notimmunocompromised and are infected by a low-virulence organism

The use of routine sampling for histological analysis during revision hip replacement has been standard practice in our unit for many years. It is used to assess for the presence of inflammatory processes that may represent peri-prosthetic infection. Our study examines 152 consecutive patients who underwent revision hip replacement in our centre for all reasons, excluding malignant neoplasm or metastasis. We reviewed the cases from a prospectively collated database, comparing microbiology results with histology results. Both microscopic and macroscopic analysis by specialist musculoskeletal histopathologist was included in our study. We found 17 (11.2%) patients had cultured bacteria from intra-operative samples. Eight patients (5.3%) had histological findings interpreted as infection. Only one patient who had macroscopic and microscopic histology findings suggestive of infection also had culture results that identified a pathogen. Furthermore, the macroscopic analyses by the histopathologist suggested infection in nine patients. Only one patient with positive culture in greater than 2 samples had histological features of infection. Of the 4 patients who were found to have 3 or more samples where an organism was identified only one had histological features of infection. This represents 25% sensitivity when using histology to analyse samples for infection. Of the 8 patients who had both macroscopic and microscopic features of infection only 1 patients cultured bacteria in more than 3 samples (PPV 12.5%). Our experience does not support the routine sampling for histology in revision hip replacement. We suggest it is only beneficial in cases where infection is suspected or where a multi-procedure, staged revision is performed and the surgeon is planning return to theatre for the final stage. This is a substantial paradigm shift from the current practice among revision arthroplasty surgeons in the United Kingdom but will equate to a substantial cost saving

Aims

The duration of systemic antibiotic treatment following first-stage revision surgery for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is contentious. Our philosophy is to perform an aggressive debridement, and to use a high local concentration of targeted antibiotics in cement beads and systemic prophylactic antibiotics alone. The aim of this study was to assess the success of this philosophy in the management of PJI of the hip using our two-stage protocol.

Aims

This study aims to assess the relationship between history of pseudotumour formation secondary to metal-on-metal (MoM) implants and periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) rate, as well as establish ESR and CRP thresholds that are suggestive of infection in these patients. We hypothesized that patients with a pseudotumour were at increased risk of infection.

Aims

Two-stage exchange revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) performed in case of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) has been considered for many years as being the gold standard for the treatment of chronic infection. However, over the past decade, there have been concerns about its safety and its effectiveness. The purposes of our study were to investigate our practice, collecting the overall spacer complications, and then to analyze their risk factors.

Aims

The aims of this study were to determine the incidence and factors for developing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following hemiarthroplasty (HA) for hip fracture, and to evaluate treatment outcome and identify factors associated with treatment outcome.

Advances in the treatment of periprosthetic joint infections of the hip have once more pushed prosthesis preserving techniques into the limelight. At the same time, the common infecting organisms are evolving to become more resistant to conventional antimicrobial agents. Whilst the epidemiology of resistant staphylococci is changing, a number of recent reports have advocated the use of irrigation and debridement and one-stage revision for the treatment of periprosthetic joint infections due to resistant organisms. This review presents the available evidence for the treatment of periprosthetic joint infections of the hip, concentrating in particular on methicillin resistant staphylococci. . Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):60–5

Introduction. Recent focus has shifted towards the utilization of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) sequencing modalities in periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) diagnosis and organism identification. The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of next generation sequencing (NGS) to polymerase chain reaction (PCR) multiplex, culture, the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria, and the recently proposed criteria by Parvizi et al. [1] in the diagnosis of periprosthetic hip infections. Methods. In this retrospective study, aspirate or tissue samples were collected in 23 revision and 19 primary hip arthroplasties for routine diagnostic workup for PJI and sent to the laboratory for NGS and PCR multiplex. Concordance along with statistical differences between diagnostic studies were calculated using Chi-squared test for categorical data. Results. When comparing to the MSIS criteria, concordance was 71.4% for NGS, 64.3% for PCR, and 92.9% for culture (p<0.001). There was no significant difference based on prior infection (p=0.695), or sample collection method (tissue swab or synovial fluid) (p=0.327). Seven samples were culture positive and NGS negative all of which met both criteria for PJI. Four patients were culture negative but NGS positive, of which 1 (25.0%) met both criteria. Concordance was 100% between the MSIS criteria and criteria proposed by Parvizi et al. [1]. Conclusion. In this initial cohort NGS was more accurate than 16s subunit PCR techniques, but less accurate than culture in the diagnosis of PJI determining the presence or absence of PJI. What is not clear is how NGS will perform against culture in terms of identifying the specific bacterial strain. Currently, laboratory tests used for either criteria for PJI diagnosis should be obtained regardless of NGS along with the overall clinical picture to help guide decision making for PJI treatment. For any tables or figures, please contact the authors directly