Marginal kidney transplantation: the road less traveled.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Kidney transplantation indisputably confers a significant survival advantage and a better quality of life compared with dialysis, however, because of the increasing demand for kidney transplantation many patients continue to wait prolonged periods for kidney transplantation. The first step to alleviate the shortage is to reduce the discard rate by utilizing more marginal kidneys. This review studied the recent literature on marginal kidney transplantation. RECENT FINDINGS: More than 60% of high-KDPI kidneys are discarded. Despite the increase in posttransplant costs, use of high KDPI transplants suggests a gain in survival years, thus making marginal kidney transplant cost effective. Furthermore, recent evidence suggests that marginal kidney transplantation shows a survival benefit compared with remaining in the waitlist and minimizes the kidney discard rate. SUMMARY: Transplantation with marginal kidneys provides a survival benefit over dialysis or waiting for a low-KDPI kidney. As a result, clinicians should strongly consider transplantation of marginal kidneys as opposed to waiting for a better offer.

Healing the silence.

This essay won the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion essay contest for 2024. I am submitting this as requested by Dr Elliott Haut and Kaitlyn Sanders.

Subjective Cognitive Decline Plus and Longitudinal Assessment and Risk for Cognitive Impairment.

Importance: Subjective cognitive decline (SCD) is recognized to be in the Alzheimer disease (AD) cognitive continuum. The SCD Initiative International Working Group recently proposed SCD-plus (SCD+) features that increase risk for future objective cognitive decline but that have not been assessed in a large community-based setting. Objective: To assess SCD risk for mild cognitive impairment (MCI), AD, and all-cause dementia, using SCD+ criteria among cognitively normal adults. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Framingham Heart Study, a community-based prospective cohort study, assessed SCD between 2005 and 2019, with up to 12 years of follow-up. Participants 60 years and older with normal cognition at analytic baseline were included. Cox proportional hazards (CPH) models were adjusted for baseline age, sex, education, APOE ε4 status, and tertiles of AD polygenic risk score (PRS), excluding the APOE region. Data were analyzed from May 2021 to November 2023. Exposure: SCD was assessed longitudinally using a single question and considered present if endorsed at the last cognitively normal visit. It was treated as a time-varying variable, beginning at the first of consecutive, cognitively normal visits, including the last, at which it was endorsed. Main Outcomes and Measures: Consensus-diagnosed MCI, AD, and all-cause dementia. Results: This study included 3585 participants (mean [SD] baseline age, 68.0 [7.7] years; 1975 female [55.1%]). A total of 1596 participants (44.5%) had SCD, and 770 (21.5%) were carriers of APOE ε4. APOE ε4 and tertiles of AD PRS status did not significantly differ between the SCD and non-SCD groups. MCI, AD, and all-cause dementia were diagnosed in 236 participants (6.6%), 73 participants (2.0%), and 89 participants (2.5%), respectively, during follow-up. On average, SCD preceded MCI by 4.4 years, AD by 6.8 years, and all-cause dementia by 6.9 years. SCD was significantly associated with survival time to MCI (hazard ratio [HR], 1.57; 95% CI, 1.22-2.03; P <.001), AD (HR, 2.98; 95% CI, 1.89-4.70; P <.001), and all-cause dementia (HR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.44-3.18; P <.001). After adjustment for APOE and AD PRS, the hazards of SCD were largely unchanged. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this cohort study suggest that in a community setting, SCD reflecting SCD+ features was associated with an increased risk of future MCI, AD, and all-cause dementia with similar hazards estimated in clinic-based settings. SCD may be an independent risk factor for AD and other dementias beyond the risk incurred by APOE ε4 and AD PRS.

Current Implementation Outcomes of Digital Surgical Simulation in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Digital surgical simulation and telecommunication provides an attractive option for improving surgical skills, widening access to training, and improving patient outcomes; however, it is unclear whether sufficient simulations and telecommunications are accessible, effective, or feasible in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine which types of surgical simulation tools have been most widely used in LMICs, how surgical simulation technology is being implemented, and what the outcomes of these efforts have been. We also offer recommendations for the future development of digital surgical simulation implementation in LMICs. METHODS: We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Central Register of Controlled Trials to look for qualitative studies in published literature discussing implementation and outcomes of surgical simulation training in LMICs. Eligible papers involved surgical trainees or practitioners who were based in LMICs. Papers that include allied health care professionals involved in task sharing were excluded. We focused specifically on digital surgical innovations and excluded flipped classroom models and 3D models. Implementation outcome had to be reported according to Proctor's taxonomy. RESULTS: This scoping review examined the outcomes of digital surgical simulation implementation in LMICs for 7 papers. The majority of participants were medical students and residents who were identified as male. Participants rated surgical simulators and telecommunications devices highly for acceptability and usefulness, and they believed that the simulators increased their anatomical and procedural knowledge. However, limitations such as image distortion, excessive light exposure, and video stream latency were frequently reported. Depending on the product, the implementation cost varied between US $25 and US $6990. Penetration and sustainability are understudied implementation outcomes, as all papers lacked long-term monitoring of the digital surgical simulations. Most authors are from high-income countries, suggesting that innovations are being proposed without a clear understanding of how they can be incorporated into surgeons' practical training. Overall, the study indicates that digital surgical simulation is a promising tool for medical education in LMICs; however, additional research is required to address some of the limitations in order to achieve successful implementation, unless scaling efforts prove futile. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that digital surgical simulation is a promising tool for medical education in LMICs, but further research is necessary to address some of the limitations and ensure successful implementation. We urge more consistent reporting and understanding of implementation of science approaches in the development of digital surgical tools, as this is the critical factor that will determine whether we are able to meet the 2030 goals for surgical training in LMICs. Sustainability of implemented digital surgical tools is a pain point that must be focused on if we are to deliver digital surgical simulation tools to the populations that demand them the most.

Dramatic motor recovery following recanalization in bilateral pontine infarct with restricted diffusion.

On findings of restricted diffusion in a bilateral pontine infarct, imaging solely may not predict a poor clinical outcome as a full motor recovery is possible. Hence, recanalization of an acutely occluded basilar artery should be carefully considered on a case by case basis.