OBJECTIVE To investigate the efficacy of capsulectomy shunt revision (CSR) compared with the implantation of a second Ahmed glaucoma valve (re-AGV) in glaucoma patients with failed shunts. METHODS Quasi-experimental study. METHODS Forty-six eyes with failed Ahmed glaucoma valves (AGVs) were included in the study; 25 underwent CSR, whereas 21 underwent re-AGV. METHODS Patients were scheduled for CSR or re-AGV based on the appearance and accessibility of the existing AGV versus the feasibility for re-AGV in other quadrants. The CSR involved incision and dissection down to the thick fibrous capsule around the AGV plate, which was excised extensively. For re-AGV, the second shunt was implanted in the supranasal or infranasal quadrants. METHODS Surgical success, defined as intraocular pressure (IOP) > 5 mmHg, ≤ 21 mmHg, IOP reduction ≥ 20% from baseline, and no reoperation for glaucoma. Secondary outcome measures were IOP, number of glaucoma medications, and complications during a 12-month follow-up period. RESULTS Mean IOP was significantly lower than preoperative values at all time points in both study groups (P < 0.001). Intraocular pressure decreased significantly from 28.3 ± 5.04 mmHg at baseline to 16.4 ± 2.4 mmHg at final follow-up in the capsulectomy group (P = 0.002). Corresponding IOP values for re-AGV were 30.99 ± 6.2 and 13.6 ± 3.8 mmHg, respectively (P = 0.001). Intraocular pressure in the CSR group was higher than re-AGV during the study (P = 0.003). The cumulative probability of success at 12 months was significantly higher in the re-AGV group (87.5% vs 53.3%, P = 0.002). There was no significant difference in the number of glaucoma medications and overall complications rate between the study groups. Wound leakage was the only complication more common in the CSR group (P = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS In the eyes with a failed AGV, re-AGV and CSR are both effective. Implantation of a second shunt seems more effective than the surgical revision of an existing device; however, the latter procedure may be a viable option in selected cases. BACKGROUND The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.