From the Guidelines

Transposition is generally preferred over interposition for creating an Arteriovenous Fistula (AVF).

The choice between transposition and interposition depends on various factors, including vessel characteristics, patient comorbidities, and health circumstances 1.
Transposition, particularly of the basilic vein, is considered a viable option when a radiocephalic or brachiocephalic fistula cannot be created 1.
Interposition, on the other hand, is not explicitly mentioned in the provided guidelines as a preferred method for AVF creation.

The KDOQI guidelines suggest an AV access (AVF or AVG) in preference to a CVC in most incident and prevalent HD patients due to the lower infection risk associated with AV access use 1.
The guidelines also recommend considering the patient's circumstances, available suitable vessels, and ESKD Life-Plan when choosing a vascular access type and location 1.

AVF is preferred over AVG due to its association with superior patency and lower complications, although recent data have challenged these associations 1.
AVG can be used as a bridge to an AVF, and failing forearm grafts can be converted to upper-arm fistulae 1.

The transposition procedure may create significant arm swelling and patient pain, and is more technically challenging, especially in obese individuals 1.
The choice of vascular access type and location should be based on the operator's/clinician's best clinical judgment, considering the vessel characteristics, patient comorbidities, health circumstances, and patient preference 1.

From the Research

Transposition of an AVF involves moving a deeply located vein to a more superficial location to facilitate easier access for dialysis 2, 3, 4.
Interposition of an AVF is not a commonly discussed term in the context of AVF creation, but it can be inferred to mean the placement of a graft or other material between an artery and a vein to create a functional AVF.
Studies have shown that transposition techniques, such as tunnel transposition and elevation, can be effective in creating a functional AVF, especially in patients with limited vascular access options 3, 4.
The choice of transposition technique depends on various factors, including the patient's anatomy, vascular adaptability, and the surgeon's preference 2, 5.
Brachial-basilic AVF with transposition (BBTAVF) has been shown to have superior patency rates and require fewer interventions compared to prosthetic forearm loop arteriovenous grafts (AVG) 5.
Transposition of the brachial vein has also been used as a viable option for autogenous access in patients with difficult access extremities 6.

A study comparing the outcomes of three different types of AVF transpositions (forearm cephalic vein transposition, upper arm cephalic vein transposition, and upper arm basilic vein transposition) found that all three techniques had acceptable patency and safety profiles 3.
Another study found that the two-stage technique of brachiobasilic AVF transposition had a reasonable patency rate and primary functional rate, with low complication rates 4.
A comparison of BBTAVF and AVG found that BBTAVF had superior primary and functional patency rates, and required fewer interventions to maintain patency 5.

Complications associated with AVF transposition include postoperative limb edema, bleeding, and thrombosis of the AVF 4, 6.
The patency rates of AVF transposition vary depending on the technique used, with primary patency rates ranging from 52.0% to 90.5% at 12 months 3, 4, 6.
Cumulative (secondary) patency rates have been reported to be as high as 92.4% at 24 months 6.