Despite the successful, durable results, concern remains for using TKA in patients with isolated patello-femoral OA, as it requires an extensive surgical exposure and bone resection, a long recovery time, and a potentially more complex revision than that required for a patient with a failed patello-femoral arthroplasty (PFA). PFA was introduced in the late 1970s. While PFA was successful in providing pain relief, the procedure did not gain widespread use because of initial design limitations that predisposed to PF maltracking, catching, and subluxation. The mechanical complications associated with first-generation PFA offset the potential advantages of maintaining the knee's native soft tissues and spurred efforts to improve implant design, and to refine surgical techniques and patient selection. Over the past two decades, second generation PFAs incorporated changes in implant design and instrumentation and have shown promising results when used in the properly selected patient population. In addition, with improved instrumentation and robotics, adequate implant alignment and rotation can be achieved in the majority of patients, including those with severe patellofemoral dysplasia. Our meta-analysis of TKA and PFA for the treatment of isolated patello-femoral OA showed that the rate of complications of patients undergoing PFA was 30% after a median follow up of 5.3 years, which is significantly higher than the 7% rate of complications in patients who underwent TKA. The most frequent type of complication associated with PFA was mechanical (including loosening and instability), which is consistent with the malalignment and maltracking-related failures previously reported. The incidence of re-operation after PFA (21%) was significantly higher than that seen after TKA (2%). The most frequent indication for re-operation after PFA was mechanical failure (7%), followed by progression of OA (6%), and persistent pain or stiffness (5%). The most common re-operations after PFA were conversion to TKA, revision of PFA components, lateral releases, open or arthroscopic debridement, manipulations under anesthesia, and bony and/or soft tissue extensor mechanism re-alignment procedures. In our study, 11% of patients treated with PFA underwent a revision arthroplasty, with 4% undergoing revision PFA and 7% undergoing conversion to TKA. Our comparison of patients who were treated with second-generation PFA designs versus TKA showed no difference in the rate of complications, re-operation, or revision arthroplasty. Additionally, length of follow-up did not significantly influence any of these outcomes when comparing second-generation PFA and TKA. These observations provide support for the use of current PFA designs. The mechanical complications and subsequent re-operations that affected first-generation PFA designs appear to be of less concern with proper patient selection, meticulous surgical technique, current implant designs and peri-operative care. While it is difficult to predict the survivorship of current PFA designs, it is our expectation that patient selection will continue to be a critical component in determining long-term results. The potential benefit of providing pain relief while preserving the tibiofemoral articulations makes PFA a promising treatment option