Clinical effects of buttonhole cannulation method on hemodialysis patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the buttonhole cannulation method is now widely used as an alternative to the rope-ladder method in most countries, only the latter method is used in Korea. This study was performed to investigate clinical benefit of the buttonhole technique for arteriovenous fistula (AVF) cannulation in maintenance hemodialysis (HD) patients. Thirty-two patients receiving HD via mature AVF were included and AVF cannulation was performed by 20 experienced nurses. During the 8 weeks, AVFs were cannulated by the rope-ladder method with 15-gauge sharp needles. After creating of 2 pairs of tunnel tracks by sharp needles for 7 weeks, AVFs were cannulated by the buttonhole method using 15-gauge blunt needles during the 16 weeks. Vascular access blood flow rate (BFR), dialysis venous pressure (DVP), and dialysis adequacy (Kt/V) were measured within the first week of the two cannulation methods. Cannulation pain, hemostasis time, and nurse's stress were evaluated at the end of the two methods. There were no statistical differences in vascular access BFR (P = 0.139), DVP (P = 0.152), and dialysis adequacy (P = 0.343) between the two methods. However, the buttonhole method shortened hemostasis time (P = 0.001) and decreased cannulation pain (P = 0.001) as well as nurse's stress (P = 0.001) compared with the rope-ladder method. In conclusion, the buttonhole cannulation method improves hemostasis time, cannulation pain, and nurse's stress without a change in vascular access BFR and dialysis adequacy in HD 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".