Purpose The aim of this study was to report the clinical and functional outcomes, complication rates, implant survivorship and the progression of tibiofemoral osteoarthritis (OA), after new inlay or onlay patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA), for isolated patellofemoral OA. Comparison of different implant types and models, where it was possible, also represented one of the objectives. Methods A systematic literature search following PRISMA guidelines was conducted on PubMed, Scopus, Embase and Cochrane databases, to identify possible relevant studies, published from the inception of these databases until 11.11.2022. Randomized control trials (RCTs), case series, case control studies and cohort studies, written in English or German, and published in peer-reviewed journals after 2010, were included. Not original studies, case reports, simulation studies, systematic reviews, or studies that included patients who underwent TKA or unicompartmental arthroplasty (UKA) of the medial or lateral compartment of the knee, were excluded. Additionally, only articles that assessed functional and/or clinical outcomes, patient-reported outcomes (PROMs), radiographic progression of OA, complication rates, implant survival rates, pain, as well as conversion to TKA rates in patients treated with PFA, using inlay or onlay trochlea designs, were included. For quality assessment, the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) for non-comparative and comparative clinical intervention studies was used. Results The literature search identified 404 articles. 29 of them met all the inclusion criteria following the selection process. Median MINORS for non-comparative studies value was 12.5 (range 11–14), and for comparative studies 20.1 (range 17–24). In terms of clinical and functional outcomes, no difference between onlay and inlay PFA has been described. Both designs yielded satisfactory results at short, medium and long-term follow-ups. Both designs improved pain postoperatively and no difference between them in terms of postoperative VAS has been noted, although the onlay groups presented a higher preoperative VAS. When comparing the inlay to onlay trochlea designs, the inlay group displayed a lower progression of OA rate. Conclusion There is no difference in functional or clinical outcomes after PFA between the new inlay and the onlay designs, with both presenting an improvement in most of the scores that were used. A higher rate of OA progression was observed in the onlay design group. Level of evidence III.