Adam came home a couple of days with this story. I repeatedly accused him of lying, but really.. who could ever make this crap up.
Adam is currently taking care of transplant patients. He was in clinic and a patient came in (along with his mother) needing "access" for his dialysis treatments. They started asking the patient general health/medical questions and quickly learned that the patient received a kidney from his mother. The transplant was done in Mexico. Great! When did the new kidney fail? The patient couldn't provide them an answer, so they contacted the patient's nephrologist. He explained that while the mother has a scar indicative of a kidney harvest (he had examined her), the son's scar is not "normal" for a kidney recipient. After further investigation (an ultrasound and CT scan) the donor kidney could not be found. They could tell, because usually when a kidney is transplanted they leave all the old kidneys in place and just add the new kidney. I asked Adam to explain why.
From Adam: "The ureter length and the artery and vein are technically easier to deal with if the kidney is in the pelvis"... yeah.. thanks or in non technical terms the tubes aren't long enough to connect your kidney to your bladder if you just put it back in the same old place.)
So, the point is that they suspect/know that although the patient's mother gave a kidney, it is likely that her son did not get said kidney. The funny thing is that NO ONE wanted to tell the mother that her kidney is out there somewhere.
I guess all those crazy urban legends of people waking up in baths of ice with a scar are slightly true.
the end.
