BACKGROUND: Unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) is one of the effective interventions for the treatment of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. Moreover, it has multiple advantages over total knee arthroplasty (TKA), including reduced intraoperative blood loss, decreased risk of transfusion, and faster recovery. This study aimed to discuss critical technical considerations regarding UKR and some of the controversies and updates. METHODS: We conducted a review to provide an overview of the controversies and technical considerations about UKR in several aspects. Only peer-reviewed articles were included, up to December 2023 using PubMed, Google Scholar, ERIC, and Cochrane database for systematic reviews databases. RESULT: UKR is associated with superior patient-reported clinical and functional outcomes, as well as shorter hospital stays, fewer postoperative complications, and revealed favorable outcomes in patients' return to sport. The choice between mobile- and fixed-bearing prostheses depends, in part, on the surgeon's preference. The mobile-bearing UKR is a less constrained prosthesis and can potentially result in less wear, but it is more technically demanding. While no significant difference between mobile-bearing versus fixed-bearing prostheses, cementless is superior to cemented design. Furthermore, UKR can be a good alternative for high tibial osteotomy (HTO) and still can be considered after a failed HTO. Lastly, recent reviews have shown a revision rate comparable to that of TKA. This is probably influenced by Improved comprehension of the best indications, patient selection criteria, as well as of the design, materials, and technological advances. CONCLUSION: UKR treatment for unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis is secure and effective. Based on clinical and functional outcomes, decreased morbidity and mortality, and cost-effectiveness, long-term studies suggest that UKR is superior to TKA. Further investigation in this area is warranted.