Purpose To compare the incidence of correction loss and survival rate between closed-wedge and open-wedge high tibial osteotomies (CWHTO and OWHTO, respectively) in patients with osteopenic and normal bone. Methods Retrospective review was conducted for 115 CWHTOs and 119 OWHTOs performed in osteopenic patients [− 2.5 < Bone mineral density (BMD) T scores ≤ − 1] and 136 CWHTOs and 138 OWHTOs performed in normal patients (BMD T score > − 1) from 2012 to 2019. Demographics were not diferent between CW-and OWHTOs in osteopenic and normal patients (n.s., respectively). Radiographically, the mechanical axis (MA), medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA), and posterior tibial slope (PTS) were evaluated pre-and postoperatively (2 weeks after HTO). The occurrence of hinge fractures was investigated using radiographs taken on the operation day. The correction change was calculated as the last follow-up value minus postoperative MPTA. Correction loss was deined when the correction change was ≥ 3°. The survival rate (failure: correction loss) was investigated. Results There were no signiicant diferences in the pre and postoperative MA, MPTA, PTS, and value changes between CW-and OWHTOs in osteopenic and normal patients (n.s., respectively); the incidence of unstable hinge fractures also did not difer signiicantly (CWHTO vs. OWHTO = 7 vs. 7.6% in osteopenic patients; 2.9 vs. 3.6% in normal patients; n.s., respectively). The average correction change (CWHTO = − 0.6°, OWHTO = − 1.3°, p = 0.007), incidence of correction loss (CWHTO = 1.7%, OWHTO = 9.2%, p = 0.019), and 5-year survival rates (CWHTO = 98.3%, OWHTO = 90.8%, p = 0.013) difered signiicantly in osteopenic patients; there were no signiicant diferences in these results in normal patients (n.s., respectively). Conclusion CWHTO was more advantageous than OWHTO regarding the correction loss in osteopenic patients. Intra-and postoperative care that consider poor bone quality will be required when performing OWHTOs in osteopenic patients. Level of evidence III.