Journal of Orthopedic Oncology
Open Access

Knee Replacement; Partial Knee Replacement (PKR); Total Knee Replacement (TKR); Pain Relief Range of Motion; Arthritis; Joint Surgery

Introduction

Knee replacement surgery is a common procedure performed to alleviate pain and restore function in patients with severe knee arthritis or other degenerative conditions. When it comes to knee replacement, two primary options are available: partial knee replacement (PKR) and total knee replacement (TKR). This article explores the effectiveness of these two approaches, examining their indications, outcomes, and implications for patient care [1].

Understanding partial and total knee replacement

Partial knee replacement (PKR)

Partial knee replacement involves replacing only the damaged compartment of the knee. The knee has three compartments: the medial (inner), lateral (outer), and patellofemoral (kneecap). PKR is typically recommended for patients with localized arthritis who still have healthy cartilage in other compartments. This less invasive procedure generally results in quicker recovery times, reduced pain, and a more natural knee function post-surgery [2].

Total knee replacement (TKR)

Total knee replacement, on the other hand, involves the replacement of all three compartments of the knee. It is indicated for patients with widespread arthritis and significant joint deterioration. TKR aims to provide significant pain relief and restore knee function, though it often comes with a longer recovery period and more extensive rehabilitation [3].

Effectiveness comparison

Pain relief

Both PKR and TKR are effective in alleviating pain. However, studies indicate that PKR may offer superior pain relief for patients with localized disease. Patients often report higher satisfaction rates with PKR due to the preservation of healthy tissue and less postoperative discomfort.

Range of motion

Range of motion is crucial for knee function. Research suggests that PKR patients may experience better functional outcomes and a quicker return to full range of motion compared to TKR patients. This is attributed to the less invasive nature of PKR, allowing for less trauma to the surrounding muscles and ligaments [4].

Recovery time

The recovery time for PKR is generally shorter than for TKR. Many PKR patients are able to resume normal activities within a few weeks, while TKR patients may require several months of rehabilitation. This shorter recovery period is often a deciding factor for patients with a desire to return quickly to their daily routines.

Longevity of implants

While PKR has shown promising short-term results, long-term durability remains a concern. Total knee replacements have a longer track record of success and durability, often lasting 15 to 20 years or more. In contrast, PKR may not be suitable for all patients, particularly those with progressive disease in other compartments, which may necessitate conversion to a TKR in the future [5].

Patient selection

The effectiveness of either procedure largely depends on appropriate patient selection. Ideal candidates for PKR are those with localized arthritis and good alignment of the knee. TKR is often recommended for patients with more extensive joint damage or those with significant comorbidities that might complicate surgery [6].

Discussion

Knee arthroplasty is a vital procedure for individuals suffering from knee osteoarthritis, offering significant improvements in pain relief and functional mobility. Among the surgical options, partial knee replacement (PKR) and total knee replacement (TKR) serve distinct patient needs based on the extent of joint damage. Understanding the nuances of each procedure is essential for optimizing outcomes [7].

Both PKR and TKR are effective in alleviating pain associated with knee arthritis, but the extent and nature of pain relief can vary. PKR typically yields higher patient satisfaction scores in individuals with localized arthritis, as it preserves more of the natural knee structure. Patients often report a more "normal" feeling in their knee post-surgery, which can contribute to enhance emotional well-being and improved quality of life. In contrast, TKR, which replaces all three compartments of the knee, is generally indicated for more widespread arthritis. While it is effective in reducing pain, some patients may experience residual discomfort due to the more extensive nature of the surgery.

Functional outcomes are critical metrics for assessing the effectiveness of knee replacement surgeries. Studies have shown that patients undergoing PKR often regain their range of motion faster than those who undergo TKR. This is primarily due to the less invasive nature of PKR, which allows for quicker healing of surrounding soft tissues and less disruption of muscle and ligament integrity. However, TKR can provide a more stable and robust joint structure in the long term, making it suitable for patients with significant joint degeneration [8].

Recovery dynamics between PKR and TKR also differ considerably. Patients typically experience a shorter recovery time with PKR, often resuming daily activities within weeks. This quicker rehabilitation can be especially beneficial for active individuals or those with demanding jobs. In contrast, TKR patients usually require several months of physical therapy to regain full function, which may deter some candidates from opting for this comprehensive solution. The longer recovery associated with TKR, however, can sometimes lead to better long-term functional stability [9].

Longevity and durability of the implants are critical considerations in the effectiveness of knee replacement surgeries. TKR has a well-established track record, with many implants lasting 15 to 20 years or longer. In contrast, PKR may not always provide the same longevity, particularly if the remaining compartments of the knee deteriorate over time, which could necessitate conversion to TKR. This potential need for revision surgery can weigh heavily in the decision-making process for patients and their surgeons.

Ultimately, the choice between PKR and TKR should be guided by thorough patient evaluation and discussion. Ideal candidates for PKR are those with isolated compartment disease, good knee alignment, and less extensive damage. Conversely, TKR is often the better option for patients with multi-compartment arthritis or those who are significantly overweight, as it offers a comprehensive approach to joint restoration [10].

Conclusion

Both partial and total knee replacements have their advantages and limitations. Partial knee replacement can offer excellent outcomes for specific patient populations, especially those with localized joint issues, while total knee replacement remains the gold standard for extensive knee degeneration. The decision between PKR and TKR should be individualized, taking into account the patient's specific condition, lifestyle, and personal preferences. Ultimately, a thorough discussion with a qualified orthopedic surgeon is essential to determine the most effective approach for achieving optimal pain relief and functional recovery.

Conflict of Interest

None

Acknowledgement

None

References

1. Olsen LF, Issinger OG, Guerra B (2013) The Yin and Yang of redox regulation. Redox Rep 18: 245-252.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

2. Pernas L, Scorrano L (2016) Mito-morphosis: mitochondrial fusion, fission, and cristae remodeling as key mediators of cellular function. Annu Rev Physiol 78: 505-531.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

3. Alston CL, Rocha MC, Lax NZ, Turnbull DM, Taylor RW, et al (2017) The genetics and pathology of mitochondrial disease. J Pathol 241: 236-250.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

4. Ong SB, Kalkhoran SB, Hernandez-Resendiz S, Samangouei P, Ong SG, et al. (2017) Mitochondrial-shaping proteins in cardiac health and disease – the long and the short of it!. Cardiovasc Drugs Ther 31: 87-107.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

5. Yu T, Robotham JL, Yoon Y (2006) Increased production of reactive oxygen species in hyperglycemic conditions requires dynamic change of mitochondrial morphology. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103: 2653-2658.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

6. Jheng HF, Tsai PJ, Guo SM, Kuo LH, Chang CS, et al. (2012) Mitochondrial fission contributes to mitochondrial dysfunction and insulin resistance in skeletal muscle. Mol Cell Biol 32: 309-319.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

7. Tailor D, Hahm ER, Kale RK, Singh SV, Singh RP (2014) Sodium butyrate induces DRP1-mediated mitochondrial fusion and apoptosis in human colorectal cancer cells. Mitochondrion 16: 55-64.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

8. Kondrup J, Rasmussen HH, Hamberg O, Stanga Z, Group AHEW, et al. (2003) Nutritional risk screening (NRS 2002):  A new method based on an analysis of controlled clinical trials. Clin Nutr 22: 321-336.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

9. Marcadenti A, Mendes LL, Rabito EI, Fink JDS, Silva FM, et al. (2018) Nutritional Risk in Emergency-2017:  A New Simplified Proposal for a Nutrition Screening Tool. J Parenter Enter Nutr 42: 1168-1176.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

10. Arslan M, Soylu M, Kaner G, İnanç N, Başmısırlı E, et al. (2016) Evaluation of malnutrition detected with the Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS-2002) and the quality of life in hospitalized patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Hippokratia 20: 147-152.

Google Scholar, Indexed at