ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Living donor kidney transplantation is the best type of renal replacement therapy for patients with end-stage renal disease. Living kidney donors (LKDs) undergo an extensive evaluation before donating, and many potential LKDs are declined. This study aimed to define the reasons for the decline in LKD candidates referred to our center. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed clinical data of all potential LKDs evaluated between January 2001 and December 2021 at our institution,Western National Medical Center, Pediatric Hospital. Data were obtained by review of an electronic database. RESULTS: A total of 1332 potential LKDs were evaluated, 796 (59.7%) successfully donated; 20 (1.5%) had a complete evaluation, were accepted for donation, and were on the waiting list for intervention; 56 (4.2%) continued in the evaluation process; 200 (15%) were discharged from the program due to administrative aspects, death (donor or receptor), or cadaveric renal transplantation in order of frequency; 56 (4.2%) withdraw by personal choice; and 204 (15.3%) were rejected for donation. Donor-related reasons included medical contraindications (n = 134, 65.7%), anatomic contraindications (n = 38, 18.6%), immunologic barriers (n = 18, 8.8%), and psychological reasons (n = 11, 5.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the large number of potential LKDs, a significant proportion did not proceed for donation for different reasons; in our description, it represents 40.3%. The largest proportion is because of donor-related causes, and most of the reasons result from the candidate's unnoticed chronic diseases.
Subject(s)
Kidney Failure, Chronic , Kidney Transplantation , Child , Humans , Living Donors/psychology , Retrospective Studies , Kidney , Kidney Failure, Chronic/surgeryABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Acute appendicitis is the most common surgical disease in emergency surgery, however, it remains a diagnostic problem and represents a challenge despite the experience and the different clinical and paraclinical diagnostic methods. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate in a comparative way the scale of Alvarado, AIR and RIPASA to determine which one is best as a diagnostic test of acute appendicitis in our population in order to arrive to an accurate diagnosis in the shortest possible time and cost. METHOD: Observational, prospective, transversal and comparative study of 137 patients to whom the scale of Alvarado, AIR and RIPASA was applied, who entered the emergency service of the Civil Hospital of Culiacán (México) with abdominal pain syndrome suggestive of acute appendicitis. RESULTS: The Alvarado scale presented sensitivity 97.2% and specificity of 27.6%. AIR presented sensitivity of 81.9% and specificity of 89.5%. RIPASA showed the same results as Alvarado. All tests showed diagnostic accuracy above 80. CONCLUSIONS: Alvarado and RIPASA presented good sensitivity, however, AIR is more specific, and has better accuracy for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis, making a better screening and thus reducing unnecessary surgeries. Therefore, it is recommended to use more AIR than Alvarado and RIPASA.
INTRODUCCIÓN: La apendicitis aguda es la enfermedad quirúrgica más común en cirugía de urgencia; sin embargo, sigue siendo un problema diagnóstico y representa un reto a pesar de la experiencia y los diferentes métodos de diagnóstico clínicos y paraclínicos. OBJETIVO: Evaluar en forma comparativa las escalas de Alvarado, AIR y RIPASA para determinar cuál es superior como prueba diagnóstica de apendicitis aguda en nuestra población, llegando a un diagnóstico preciso en el menor tiempo y costo posibles. MÉTODO: Estudio observacional, prospectivo, transversal y comparativo de 137 pacientes a quienes se aplicó las escalas de Alvarado, AIR y RIPASA, que ingresaron al servicio de urgencias del Hospital Civil de Culiacán (México) con síndrome doloroso abdominal sugestivo de apendicitis aguda. RESULTADOS: La escala de Alvarado presentó una sensibilidad del 97.2% y una especificidad del 27.6%. AIR tuvo una sensibilidad del 81.9% y una especificidad del 89.5%. RIPASA arrojó los mismos resultados que Alvarado. Todas las pruebas tuvieron una exactitud diagnóstica por arriba del 80. CONCLUSIONES: Alvarado y RIPASA presentaron buena sensibilidad, mientras que AIR es más específica y tiene mayor exactitud diagnóstica de apendicitis aguda, realizando un mejor tamizaje y permitiendo disminuir las cirugías innecesarias, por lo que se recomienda usar más AIR que Alvarado y RIPASA.