Lateral meniscal tears in the stable knee are rare. There are few comparative studies evaluating functional and radiological outcomes of vertical longitudinal and bucket-handle lateral meniscal tears. To evaluate the midterm clinical and radiological outcomes of arthroscopically repaired traumatic vertical longitudinal and bucket-handle lateral meniscal tears. Case series; Level of evidence, 4. A total of 43 full-thickness lateral meniscal repairs, including 22 (51.2%) for vertical longitudinal tears and 21 (48.8%) for bucket-handle tears, were evaluated. A clinical assessment was performed according to the Barrett criteria, and patient outcomes were measured with the Lysholm knee score, Tegner activity scale, and overall satisfaction scale. Magnetic resonance imaging was used as the radiological re-examination method preoperatively and at final follow-up. A subgroup analysis examining isolated repair versus repair with concurrent anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction was performed. The mean follow-up period was 63.2 months (range, 24-86 months). Based on clinical and radiological outcomes, 38 of the 43 repairs (88.3%) were successful, and the remaining 5 (11.6%) cases were considered to be failures. Overall, the combined results for both groups demonstrated an improvement in the Lysholm score, Tegner score, and patient satisfaction. There was no significant difference in the postoperative Lysholm score (91.4 vs 87.0, respectively; P = .223), Tegner score (5.4 vs 5.5, respectively; P = .872), or patient satisfaction (7.2 vs 7.4, respectively; P = .624) between bucket-handle repair and vertical longitudinal repair. The subgroup analysis demonstrated no difference in outcome scores for isolated repair versus repair with concurrent ACL reconstruction. Smoking was identified as a risk factor for repair failure. Comparable clinical and radiological outcomes were obtained after vertical longitudinal and bucket-handle lateral meniscal repairs using the all-inside or hybrid suture technique with different suture configurations, regardless of whether ACL reconstruction was performed. Smoking was identified as a risk factor for failure.

Orthopaedic implants have significantly improved the treatment of musculoskeletal injuries and degenerative diseases, restoring function and alleviating pain. However, long-term implant success remains challenging due to loosening, wear, and infections. Recent advancements in materials science, bioengineering, and digital technologies are driving innovations in orthopaedic implants, enhancing their performance and patient outcomes. New biomaterials, such as advanced metal alloys, polymers, ceramics, and nanocomposites, offer superior biocompatibility and mechanical durability, minimizing adverse reactions. Additive manufacturing (3D printing) allows the creation of patient-specific implants with porous architectures closely resembling natural bone, enhancing osseointegration. Additionally, surface engineering techniques, including bioactive coatings for improved bone bonding and antimicrobial layers for infection prevention, address persistent issues at the implant-tissue interface. The emergence of “smart” implants equipped with sensors and wireless connectivity enables real-time monitoring of biomechanical parameters, paving the way for personalized, data-driven orthopaedic care. This review summarizes significant developments in orthopaedic implant technology from 2020 to 2025, highlighting advances in materials, design, and functionality. We discuss how these innovations address traditional challenges and examine remaining hurdles to clinical application. Future directions, such as biodegradable implants that eliminate secondary surgeries and AI-assisted implant design, are also explored. Collectively, these breakthroughs promise a new era in orthopaedic treatments, marked by enhanced implant longevity, functionality, and patient quality of life.