Sengupta A, Yazdchi F, Alexis SL, et al. - In this study, researchers performed comparison of results of: (1) reoperative mitral valve replacement (redo‐MVR) and mitral valve‐in‐valve (MVIV) replacement for structural valve degeneration (2) reoperative mitral valve repair (redo‐MVr) or MVR and mitral valve‐in‐ring (MVIR) replacement for failed MVr. Performing a literature search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to July 31, 2020, they identified 32 studies involving 25,832 patients for inclusion. Nearly 35% of patients required redo‐MVR after index surgery at 10 years, with 5% to 15% 30‐day mortality. Outcomes suggest that for structural valve degeneration, MVIV is a viable alternative to redo‐MVR, however, redo‐MVr or redo‐MVR is the preferred option for failed MVr owing to the suboptimal results with MVIR. However, as anatomical restrictions may preclude transcatheter options from precisely addressing the underlying pathology, all patients will not be candidates for MVIV/MVIR.