Con: Buttonhole cannulation of arteriovenous fistulae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Successful cannulation of arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) using a safe and effective technique that minimizes patient harm is a crucial aspect of haemodialysis treatment. Although the current standard of care for many years has been the rope-ladder technique (using sharp needles to cannulate rotating sites across the entire AVF), a number of enthusiasts have recently advocated for the alternative method of buttonhole cannulation (using blunt needles to repeatedly cannulate the same site via a healed track) on the basis of putative, as yet unproven benefits. In this article, we review all available observational studies, randomized controlled trials, and systematic reviews and meta-analyses that have compared the clinical outcomes of buttonhole and rope-ladder cannulation of AVFs. These studies clearly and consistently demonstrated that buttonhole cannulation causes significant and serious infectious harm to haemodialysis patients, especially in the home setting. No strategies or treatments have been proven to effectively mitigate this hazard of buttonhole cannulation. Moreover, buttonhole cannulation is associated with a higher rate of abandonment and has not been shown to have any proven benefit compared with the rope-ladder method. Specifically, buttonhole cannulation has not been shown to reduce cannulation-related pain, improve vascular access survival, reduce vascular access interventions, reduce haematoma formation, improve haemostasis or reduce aneurysm formation. Consequently, rope-ladder cannulation should remain the standard of care and buttonhole cannulation should only be used in rare circumstances (e.g. short segment AVFs where the only alternative is a haemodialysis catheter).
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.005 |
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".