This meta-analysis was conducted to compare clinical outcomes of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) versus redo-surgical aortic valve replacement (Redo-SAVR) in failed bioprosthetic aortic valves. We conducted a comprehensive review of previous publications of all relevant studies through August 2020. Twelve observational studies were included with a total of 8,430 patients, and a median-weighted follow-up period of 1.74 years. A pooled analysis of the data showed no significant difference in all-cause mortality (OR 1.15; 95% CI 0.93 – 1.43; p=0.21), cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, permanent pacemaker implantation, and the rate of moderate to severe paravalvular leakage between ViV-TAVI and Redo-SAVR groups. The rate of major bleeding (OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.16 – 0.83, p=0.02), procedural mortality (OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.18 – 0.96, p=0.04), 30-day mortality (OR 0.58; 95% CI 0.45 – 0.74, p<0.0001), and the rate of stroke (OR 0.65; 95% CI 0.52 – 0.81,p=0.0001) were significantly lower in the ViV- TAVI arm when compared to Redo-SAVR arm. The mean transvalvular pressure gradient was significantly higher post-implantation in the ViV-TAVI group when compared to the Redo-SAVR arm (Mean difference 3.92; 95% CI 1.97 – 5.88, p<0.0001). In conclusion, compared to Redo-SAVR, ViV-TAVI is associated with a similar risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, permanent pacemaker implantation, and the rate of moderate to severe paravalvular leakage. However, the rate of major bleeding, stroke, procedural mortality and 30-day mortality were significantly lower in the ViV-TAVI group when compared to Redo-SAVR.