Abstract
Objective
To compare University of Wisconsin solution (Viaspan), the universal standard for organ preservation, with histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate solution. An analysis of each solution, in reference to clinical trials with specific organs, is presented and assessed to find the efficacy of each in a clinical environment. Also to view each solution from an economical standpoint, and in the end develop an overall understanding of the key similarities and differences between each solution in order to assess appropriate use of each in a clinical setting.
Data Sources
A literature search was conducted by using PubMed, MEDLINE, BIOSIS, Embase, and other online data bases to find the most recent studies of University of Wisconsin and histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate solutions. Search terms included University of Wisconsin solution, histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate, preservation solution, cost analysis, biliary complication, and other related subjects.
Study Selection
Previous research was selected from the literature search to provide basic information on the 2 solutions and also to provide clinical examples of each solution and the efficacy of each with specific organs.
Data Synthesis
Information and published articles on the 2 solutions were gathered for descriptive and comparative purposes.
Conclusions
The 2 solutions appear equally effective in organ preservation. Each solution has its own organ-specific qualities, and each has different complications. The studies reviewed here indicate that the differences are minor and thus suggest that the 2 solutions are equally acceptable for clinical use. Of the 2 solutions, histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate costs less than University of Wisconsin solution.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.