The arteriovenous fistula remains the preferred type of vascular access because of its higher patency and lower infection rates (1). Cannulation of the fistula remains a challenge for patients, caregivers, and nurses, often resulting in increased pain, stress, and vessel injury. The use of rotating puncture sites along the entire length of the fistula, or rope-ladder cannulation (RLC), was intended to heal the site and prevent hematoma, stenosis, infection, and pseudoaneurysm. Constant site needling or buttonhole cannulation (BHC) was introduced in the 1970s to address cannulation of short fistula segments (2). The technique is based on repeated sharp needle insertion into the same site, preferably by a single cannulator, at the same angle over the course of six to nine hemodialysis sessions. This produces a scar tissue tract across the vein wall, which can subsequently be cannulated with blunt needles.The initial observational studies of BHC, many of which were retrospective, reported lower rates of hematoma and infiltration injury, less needling time (2,3), and, importantly, less pain (3-7). BHC was adopted by many home dialysis programs for its ease of cannulation and decreased training time, as well as in-center units, with support from the National Kidney Foundation's guidelines on vascular access (1) and promotion as the preferred type of cannulation by the United Kingdom Renal Association (8).The recent reporting of increased infection rates (4,6,9-11) with the use of BHC and debate as to its benefit in reducing pain (9,(11)(12)(13)(14) and improving patency (15) has tempered its use in many units and calls into question whether BHC should be used at all. Before addressing this question, it is important to review the complete body of evidence, the study population (particularly differentiating home or in-center patients), outcomes, follow-up, and the specifics of the buttonhole technique. Recent systematic reviews of both in home and in-center dialysis (16) and intensive dialysis (17), as well as a narrative review (18), highlight the concerns regarding observational and crossover study designs, short follow-up, operator dependency, and differences in the BHC technique. These reviews highlight the ongoing uncertainty surrounding the benefits and risks of BHC (14,19).In this issue of CJASN, Muir at al. (20) report on a retrospective, single-center experience comparing BHC to RLC in a home hemodialysis population, accompanied by a systematic review of the related literature. The study reports a significant 3-fold increase in total fistula-related infections/1000 fistula-days in the BHC cohort (0.39 events) compared with the RLC cohort (0.10 events), with little change in the effect size after adjustment for differences in populations. The rate of systemic fistula infections is more difficult to interpret because events rates were low and results were not reported as per 1000 fistula-days, with different reporting periods: 2003 to mid-2004 for RLC and 2004-2009 for BHC. In addition, interpretation of the rat...