“Inverted” positioning of renal allograft during kidney transplantation in children and adolescents: A single‐institution comparative analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Renal transplantation is the treatment of choice in children with end-stage renal failure. Limitations in patient anatomy or a short donor renal vein may necessitate intraoperative inversion of the kidney. There is little evidence to support the use of this surgical technique, and no evidence in the pediatric population. This study identifies the perioperative and post-operative outcomes of inverted renal transplants in pediatric patients. We reviewed all patients having a renal transplant between January 2012 and December 2016 and collected short- and long-term outcomes of patients who received an inverted allograft. Early graft function was defined as the time to reach creatinine nadir. During this time, our hospital performed 81 transplants, and 50 (62%) were from deceased donors, including the 6 (12%) patients who received inverted renal grafts. Half (3/6) were female, 5/6 (83%) were dialysis-dependent, and the median age at surgery was 13 years (range 9-16 years). There was no significant difference in mean creatinine nadir values (P = 0.518) and the time to creatinine nadir mean values (P = 0.190) between the upright and inverted renal transplant groups. There were also no significant differences in rates of post-operative complications between the upright and inverted allograft recipients. Inversion of renal allografts in pediatric patients is a viable surgical technique to compensate for shortcomings in patient anatomy or in special cases of renal transplantation involving a short donor renal vein. Future research should focus on outcomes of a larger group of pediatric inverted renal transplant patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".