Reviews: Review ArticleAnterior Cruciate Ligament Repair: Historical Perspective, Indications, Techniques, and OutcomesGee, MAJ Shawn M. MD; Peterson, CPT David R. MD; Zhou, MAJ Liang MD; Bottoni, Craig R. MDAuthor Information From the Department of Orthopaedics, Tripler Army Medical Center, Honolulu, Hawaii. Dr. Bottoni or an immediate family member serves as a paid consultant to Arthrex. None of the following authors or any immediate family member has received anything of value from or has stock or stock options held in a commercial company or institution related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article: Dr. Gee, Dr. Peterson, Dr. Zhou, and Dr. Bottoni. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons: December 1, 2020 - Volume 28 - Issue 23 - p 963-971 doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-20-00077 Metrics Abstract Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair was first reported in 1895 by Sir Arthur Mayo-Robson. Open primary ACL repair was performed throughout the 1970s and 1980s; however, rerupture rates were as high as 50% at mid-term follow-up. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, synthetic graft materials received consideration; however, the outcomes were abysmal. Recently, with a better understanding of ACL healing and improvement in technique, there has been renewed interest in ACL repair. The potential advantages of ACL repair include improvements in knee kinematics and proprioception, avoiding graft harvest, and preserving bone stock. Although recent data on short-term outcomes suggest potential in properly indicated patients, medium- and long-term outcomes are largely unknown. ACL repair has the greatest potential in cases of proximal ACL rupture (modified Sherman type I and II proximal tears). Repair of midsubstance tears (modified Sherman type III tears) should be avoided. Caution is advised in athletes and younger patients because of higher failure rates. Today, ACL repair remains controversial and should be performed with caution because of limited medium- and long-term outcomes. Written work prepared by employees of the Federal Government as part of their official duties is, under the U.S. Copyright Act, a “work of the United States Government” for which copyright protection under Title 17 of the United States Code is not available. As such, copyright does not extend to the contributions of employees of the Federal Government.