[5String43]

I have had both knees replaced. The left one was done in 2008. The right one was done in March, 2012, and again in September, 2012, as the condition of that knee was worse after the first replacement than it had been before the surgery. Grr! So I guess I can say I've had three knee replacements. It was not fun in any of the three instances.

I have heard of people having both knees done at the same time, but I do not think I would do this. I think the decision you make will depend, at least in part, upon how quickly you'd like to be up and around, driving, back at work, active. For sure, it is going to be different for everybody, as one's tolerance to discomfort will play a role in how fast you can return to the wars.

For me, both times, I was up and around within three days, driving within three days (much to my wife's chagrin), transitioned from crutches to a cane almost immediately, and back at work within five days and, after the first one, hiking across the moors in Scotland within 30 days. Having one knee that was still working relatively well greatly aided all this.

Up and around wasn't bad at all. Driving was problematic because the new knee resisted bending, so getting into and out of a car, as a driver and even as a passenger, was tough, as was bending my leg enough to reach the pedals. Also, the required rehab was intense.

I dunno, do you want to go through this twice, or just once? I can see advantages to both sides of this question. But as I noted above, I am happy that I had mine done separately.

This probably seems obvious, but if you do choose to have them done separately, have the worst one done first. Obvious, right?