It has been suggested not to use acute kidney «da ño» or «injuria» for several reasons: (1) lack of tradition, (2) the term "injuria" is a merely cosmetic change since it continues to be defined by renal function and not by objective markers of damage, independent of renal function.Theoretically, it would be possible for there to be patients with acute renal function impairment [IRA (AKI 1-3) or FRA (AKI 3)] and acute kidney injury, but also patients with acute kidney injury but without IRA or FRA.b The acronym CAC does seem to be considered subliminally in the SLANH proposal.d Despite the enormous implantation of these terms, especially beyond nephrology, it was considered that the terms micro-or macro-were not adequate because it is not about the existence of a "small" or a "big" albumin.e It is possible that the nomenclature associated with transplantation, barely existing in the KDIGO initiative on nomenclature and with Anglo-Saxon terminology well established even in daily practice (eg borderline, DGF due to delayed graft function, etc.), deserves itself an initiative of the respective transplant societies.It should be assessed whether a translation would improve the understanding of the texts, expand or speed up the results of search engines, improve the exchange of information between the different actors in the world of transplantation or, on the contrary, it would be a "new learning" that it would displace an already integrated knowledge without additional input.