Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Assessing the effectiveness of two round neonatal resuscitation masks: study 1
  1. Fiona E Wood1,2,3,4,
  2. Colin J Morley1,2,3,4,
  3. Jennifer A Dawson1,2,3,4,
  4. C Omar F Kamlin1,2,3,4,
  5. Louise S Owen1,2,3,4,
  6. Susan Donath1,2,3,4,
  7. Peter G Davis1,2,3,4
  1. 1
    Division of Neonatal Services, The Royal Women’s Hospital, Carlton, Victoria 3053, Australia
  2. 2
    Departments of Obstetric and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3053, Australia
  3. 3
    Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Melbourne Victoria 3052, Australia
  4. 4
    Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3052, Australia
  1. Professor Colin J Morley, Division of Neonatal Services, The Royal Women’s Hospital, 132 Grattan Street, Carlton, Victoria, 3053, Australia; colin.morley{at}


Background: Positive pressure ventilation (PPV) via a face mask is an important skill taught using manikins. There have been few attempts to assess the effectiveness of different face mask designs.

Aim: To determine whether leak at the face mask during simulated neonatal resuscitation differed between a new round mask design and the current most widely used model.

Method: 50 participants gave PPV to a modified manikin designed to measure leak at the face mask. Leak was calculated from the difference between the inspired and expired tidal volumes.

Results: Mask leak varied widely with no significant difference between devices; mean (SD) percentage leak for the Laerdal round mask was 55% (31) and with the Fisher & Paykel mask it was 57% (25).

Conclusion: We compared a new neonatal face mask with an established design and found no difference in leak. On average the mask leak was >50% irrespective of operator experience or technique.

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.


  • Funding: None.

  • Competing interests: None.