Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Compromised pressure and flow during suction mask ventilation
  1. Christoph Martin Rüegger1,2,
  2. Eoin O’Currain1,3,
  3. Jennifer Anne Dawson1,4,5,
  4. Peter G Davis1,4,5,
  5. Camille Omar Farouk Kamlin1,4,5,
  6. Laila Lorenz1,6
  1. 1 Newborn Research Centre and Neonatal Services, The Royal Women’s Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  2. 2 Newborn Research, Department of Neonatology, University Hospital and University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
  3. 3 University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
  4. 4 Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia
  5. 5 University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
  6. 6 Department of Neonatology, University Children’s Hospital of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany
  1. Correspondence to Dr. Christoph Martin Rüegger, Newborn Research, Department of Neonatology, University Hospital and University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland ; christoph.rueegger{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Effective mask ventilation in newborns is challenging due to large leak.1 2 A new, commercially available round facemask (ResusiSure, LSR Healthcare, NSW, Australia) uses suction to create a seal between the mask and the infant’s face. This suction mask (SM) reduced leak in a manikin model,3 but failed in some infants when tested in a clinical trial.4 We hypothesised that in these infants, leak around the SM allowed inspiratory flow to be diverted away from the airway opening towards the suction tubing.

To test our hypothesis, we administered positive pressure ventilation with the SM in different positions, intentionally causing minimal and large leak. A modified baby manikin (Laerdal, Stavanger, Norway) was used3 with one flow sensor (FS1) between a Neopuff (Fisher & Paykel Healthcare, Auckland, New Zealand) and the SM and a second flow sensor (FS2) within the suction tubing (figure 1A). Positive …

View Full Text


  • Contributors CMR, EOC and LL conceptualised and designed the study. CMR and EOC collected the data. LL performed the data analysis. CMR and LL wrote the manuscript. EOC, JAD, PGD and COFK critically revised and approved the final manuscript as submitted.

  • Funding Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG grant number LO 2162/1-1), Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (Early Postdoc.Mobility Fellowship (P2ZHP3_161749)), National Health and Medical Research Council (Program Grant 2017-2021 (App ID 1059111; App ID 1113902)).

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.