Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 24, 2026
Laryngeal Mask Airway LMA Placement in a Neonatal Patient Simulator Using a Non-Inflatable Supraglottic Airway SGA
Published on: July 14, 2023
Evaluation of Simulated Ventilation Techniques With the Upright and Conventional Self-Inflating Neonatal
Indira Narayanan1, Marvesh Mendhi2, Pooja Bansil3
1Department of Pediatrics/Neonatology, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, D.C.
Background:
The study assessed the impact of simulated ventilation techniques using upright and conventional self-inflating neonatal resuscitators on delivered tidal volume (VT) and pressure.
Methods:
We analyzed videos of participants ventilating a manikin using an upright (upright, n = 33) and a conventional resuscitator (conventional, n = 32) under normal and low lung compliance. Mask hold, number of fingers squeezing the bag, and degree of bag squeeze were compared with VT and peak inspiratory pressure (PIP).
Results:
VT and PIP values were higher when using the upright resuscitator than when using the conventional resuscitator. With low compliance, differences in VT were insignificant except with the use of the OK/C hold, (upright, 29.6 ± 4.0 mL, vs conventional, 24.8 ± 6.0 mL, P = .02). PIP was significantly higher when using the upright resuscitator with the OK hold (upright, 36.3 ± 4.4 mL, vs conventional, 30.3 ± 6.6 mL, P = .009) and when the bag was squeezed by more than half (upright, 33.8 ± 16.3 mL, vs conventional, 29.3 ± 9.5 mL, P = .046). With normal compliance, VT was high with both resuscitators, being significantly higher when using the upright resuscitator with the OK hold (upright, 64.3 ± 9.5 mL, vs conventional, 45.8 ± 9.4 mL; P < .001), and when the bag was squeezed using more than 2 fingers (upright, 58.0 ± 17.2 mL, vs conventional, 45.7 ± 12.6 mL, P = .01) and by more than half (upright, 58.7 ± 16.6 mL, vs conventional, 45.8 ± 12.2 mL, P = .004). PIP, too, was significantly higher when using the upright resuscitator with the OK hold (upright, 29.3 ± 3.5 mL, vs conventional, 21.5 ± 4.0 mL, P = <.001) and when the bag was squeezed using more than 2 fingers (upright, 27.2 ± 7.0 mL, vs conventional, 21.6 ± 5.7 mL, P = .005), and by more than half (upright, 27.6 ± 6.6 mL, vs conventional, 21.7 ± 5.4 mL, P = .001).
Conclusions:
Improved mask design, larger bag volume, and upright orientation of the upright resuscitator likely contributed to higher VT and PIP. However, high VT was observed with both resuscitators, possibly due to excessive squeezing of the bag, especially during low compliance. Thus, the design of the resuscitator and manner in which the device is utilized can both significantly influence the VT and PIP attained.
Related Concept Videos
01:22Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation II: ACLS Airway Management
01:20Assessment of Ventilation I: Respiratory Rate
A Ventilation assessment is critical for monitoring a patient's health status. Respiration, one of the most accessible vital signs, provides insights into the function of numerous body systems and can indicate serious health issues, such as brainstem injuries from head trauma.
Critical Guidelines for Assessing Ventilation:
01:23Mechanical Ventilation II: Invasive Ventilation
Negative-Pressure Ventilators
Negative-pressure ventilators create a vacuum around the chest or body to draw air into the lungs, simulating breathing. This method does not require an...
01:23Mechanical Ventilation III: Noninvasive Ventilation
Noninvasive Positive-Pressure Ventilation...
01:29Assessment of Ventilation II: Respiratory Depth and Rhythm
Respiratory depth measures the volume of air inhaled or exhaled during a breath. It can vary from shallow to deep and typically remains consistent when a person is at rest or asleep. Occasionally, individuals will automatically inhale deeply, known as sighing, which inflates the lungs with more air than normal breathing.
To assess respiratory depth, observe the degree of chest excursion or movement:
01:29Mechanical Ventilation I: Indication and Settings