Compared efficacy of preservation solutions on the outcome of liver transplantation: Meta-analysis

Table 3 One-year post-transplant graft survival rate in included studies

Study	Solution 1				Solution 2				RR	P value
		N	n	%		N	n	%
Cavallari et al[13], 2003	UW	90	75	83.0	CS	83	71	85.0	0.97	0.69
Lopez-Andujar et al[26], 2009	UW	104	83	80.0	CS	92	75	81.0	0.98	0.76
García-Gil et al[33], 2006	UW	40	26	66.1	CS	40	31	78.0	0.84	0.22
Nardo et al[27], 2001	UW	60	54	90.0	CS	53	48	90.6	0.99	0.92
Duca et al[28], 2010	UW	51	31	60.6	CS	51	37	73.5	0.84	0.21
Rayya et al[30], 2008	UW	68	53	78.0	HTK	69	49	71.0	1.01	0.35
Meine et al[32], 2006	UW	65	61	94.0	HTK	37	35	94.0	0.99	0.88
Mangus et al[31], 2008	UW	98	82	84.0	HTK	111	95	86.0	0.98	0.70
Dondéro et al[37], 2010	UW	92	73	79.1	IGL-1	48	19	39.8	2.00	0.00
Meine et al[8], 2015	HTK	65	54	83.0	IGL-1	113	96	85.0	0.98	0.74
Nardo et al[12], 2005	HTK	20	15	75.0	CS	20	18	90.0	0.83	0.22

Studies are grouped by preservation solutions. OGS-1: One-year post-transplant graft survival; N: Number in group; n: Number of OGS-1; RR: Relative risk; UW: University of Wisconsin solution; HTK: Histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate solution; CS: Celsior solution; IGL-1: Institut Georges Lopez solution.