The math here is a little confusing, but that's an exceptionally long lived organ. For reference I received a kidney transplant from my mother at 16. It lasted 19 years after being transplanted. My mother was 68 when I had to return to dialysis.
TFA mentioned this is very exceptional, it says both that it's the longest lasting transplant this hospital has ever done and that a living kidney donation typically lasts 15 to 20 years. Meaning your 19 years is typical.
The transplant itself was done 48 years ago and the mother was 52 at the time (thus the kidney was already 52 yrs old at the time of transplant)
The detail that got me: both on gurneys holding hands, and the mom crying tells him "don't worry about a thing, I've got a Genesis concert and I'm not missing it". They both made it to the concert. He still has the ticket stub
Yeah, this had me thinking. Does transplanting older organs into younger bodies force the body to rejuvenate the transplanted organ to the recipients age.
I vaguely recall that it's the blood itself which has a big impact — to the point where blood transplants from younger blood could (temporarily) "rejuvenate" an older metabolism.
I don’t know who that is and I’m sure he couldn’t have transfused “blood”. But parabiosis experiments in mice uncovered that certain components present in young blood (like PF4) can be beneficial.
The problem is histological compatibility, i. e. not getting it ruined by the recipient's immune system. The TFA was very lucky having apparently 100% compatibility.
They can actually transplant a single liver to two people by splitting it [1].
> Approximately 1 in 10 donated livers can be divided into two segments or grafts (this is known as split liver). [...] By splitting the liver into two segments, the donated liver can be used to help two people waiting for a liver transplant.
Not so sure about that. A liver can take a heck of a beating, but speak to enough (recovering) alcoholics and you'll find plenty that have managed to knacker their livers.
I donated a kidney to my Dad in 2000. It gave him an extra 23 years with us. He was on very low doses of his anti-rejection meds, partially due to us being a 4 out of 6 HLA type match, so the doctors were hopeful it would last him the rest of his life. It would have lasted far longer if ALS hadn't shown up.
Kidney transplantation is major surgery with decent risks. Donation carries a certain level of risk as well but less than being a recipient. When I donated, the chance of dying was about 1 in 4,000.
Since I donated, my remaining kidney has grown larger and taken over a chunk of the function of my missing kidney. If possible, getting it back would only give me a relatively small benefit compared to the risk of the surgery. First, I'd have a spare again for major injuries meaning I'd be 'allowed' to do things like contact sports and such. It's recommended you don't do things that could result in an impact to your kidney when you don't have a spare. I did violate this once by going skydiving, though.
Second, I'd be able to take anti-inflammatory meds without restrictions. That is an annoying one as when I injured my rotator cuff years ago, the normal recommendation was a month of high-dose anti-inflammatory meds. Since I couldn't do that, I had to do physical therapy and injected steroids which was much more involved and more expensive.
Note that a transplanted kidney can be re-transplanted depending on the health of the recipient when they die. It's not as common but it has been more in recent years. It's often referred to as "regifting".
Not sure which “stem cells” you mean, but I think the recipient’s immune cells colonize the graft. Which means they’d start attacking the original donor(graft versus host disease in reverse).
You can't get it back there's nothing to attach it to. There's also no point for the risks involved.
Organs can be transplanted twice but it's very rare and it's usually when the first recipient dies shortly after the transplant. It's called (quite obviously) retransplantation if you want to Google it.
That won't happen. Even though it's still adequate for him it's very likely preforming under what a typical healthy kidney performs at. Long term slow rejection is nearly impossible to eliminate. No kidney transplant is forever and only in truly exceptional cases does it last the lifetime of the recipient.
All types of organs can live that long, there are 100 years old humans around. Probably many types of organs could live much longer, we don't know that, the humans having them die first.
I didn't read the article, apologies, but did they say the kidney was under-performing ? my comment above is badly trying to say "it's 100 and about to go much further"
>Vetuskey only needs to visit Strong Hospital once a year for a check-up, and doctors believe the century-old kidney could last him the rest of his life.
These days
City + Person means someone living in such city. They don’t say “from + place” because that implies origin which they try to avoid these days.
I interpret Webster Man to imply origin even more strongly than "from Webster". The noun phrasing implies long term stability, objects don't change from one noun to another noun when they change locations.
I know we're not supposed to feed the trolls here but... dang it I am legitimately intrigued about your usage of "these days" here. Do you believe it's more common now than it used to be? And that it's some sign of recent societal decay?
If you think your cause is important, and you have a finite amount of time available to advocate for it, wouldn't it be better to perform more effective advocacy than trolling? Maybe look at the work of organisations like https://www.intersexequality.com/: this one isn't focused specifically on circumcision, but there's overlap, bolstering that cause will make yours easier, and their strategies are likely to be applicable to your cause.
I read somewhere that transplanted organs adopt the age of the recipient, contradicting the hopes of people who want to live forever by replacing their organs regularly.
Didn’t Putin allude to that recently ?
In any case that’d be good news, it would augment the organ availability by allowing older donors!
The transplant itself was done 48 years ago and the mother was 52 at the time (thus the kidney was already 52 yrs old at the time of transplant)
Son: 64
Son’s transplant of mothers kidney: 48
Typical kidney transplant lifespan: 15-20
https://www.inc.com/lucia-auerbach/can-transplanted-heart-be...
Edit: your article say so, neat.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5836258/
People with infection and or endocrine failure who need an organ are more apt to need another organ (due to age - or endocrine failure again).
It's more difficult to do it while you are alive when you have a single kidney.
> Approximately 1 in 10 donated livers can be divided into two segments or grafts (this is known as split liver). [...] By splitting the liver into two segments, the donated liver can be used to help two people waiting for a liver transplant.
[1] https://www.nhsbt.nhs.uk/organ-transplantation/liver/is-a-li...
Since I donated, my remaining kidney has grown larger and taken over a chunk of the function of my missing kidney. If possible, getting it back would only give me a relatively small benefit compared to the risk of the surgery. First, I'd have a spare again for major injuries meaning I'd be 'allowed' to do things like contact sports and such. It's recommended you don't do things that could result in an impact to your kidney when you don't have a spare. I did violate this once by going skydiving, though.
Second, I'd be able to take anti-inflammatory meds without restrictions. That is an annoying one as when I injured my rotator cuff years ago, the normal recommendation was a month of high-dose anti-inflammatory meds. Since I couldn't do that, I had to do physical therapy and injected steroids which was much more involved and more expensive.
Note that a transplanted kidney can be re-transplanted depending on the health of the recipient when they die. It's not as common but it has been more in recent years. It's often referred to as "regifting".
Not sure which “stem cells” you mean, but I think the recipient’s immune cells colonize the graft. Which means they’d start attacking the original donor(graft versus host disease in reverse).
Organs can be transplanted twice but it's very rare and it's usually when the first recipient dies shortly after the transplant. It's called (quite obviously) retransplantation if you want to Google it.
Well, sometimes they do, just not the way we’d hope they did…
All types of organs can live that long, there are 100 years old humans around. Probably many types of organs could live much longer, we don't know that, the humans having them die first.
Yeah well...
(Or it can be an arachnid/human hybrid, but it's probably not that.)
like the donee dies, and the original kidney goes on to someone else
Didn’t Putin allude to that recently ?
In any case that’d be good news, it would augment the organ availability by allowing older donors!