Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2025 May 27;25(1):423.
doi: 10.1186/s12887-025-05700-x.

Prevention of nasal injury in preterm infants during positive pressure ventilation: a systematic review of interface and dressing selection

Tian Gong  1   2 , Jia Li Yu  1   2 , Hua Yang  3   4 , Yu Fan Tang  2 , Ao Huang  1   2 , Yuan Xia Wang  5
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Prevention of nasal injury in preterm infants during positive pressure ventilation: a systematic review of interface and dressing selection

Tian Gong et al. BMC Pediatr. .

Erratum in

Abstract

Objective: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the incidence of nasal injury in preterm infants undergoing continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) therapy using nasal masks versus nasal prongs, and to explore the potential effects of prophylactic use of hydrocolloid dressings in reducing nasal injury in preterm infants.

Methods: On March 1, 2025, we searched the Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases for measures and strategies to prevent nasal injury in preterm infants undergoing positive pressure ventilation, and collected relevant randomized controlled trials. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias in the literature, and the modified Jadad score was used to assess the quality of the studies. Key information was extracted, including the characteristics of the study subjects, interventions, incidence and severity of nasal injury, and failure rate of positive pressure ventilation.

Results: A total of 12 studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria, including 1 low-quality study and 11 high-quality studies, with a total sample size of 1,271 participants. Eight studies compared the effects of nasal prongs and nasal masks, with 3 studies investigating the effects of alternating use of nasal prongs and masks. Four studies used hydrocolloid dressings. The results of the meta-analysis showed that the overall incidence of nasal injury was 0.62 (95% CI 0.45-0.87, P = 0.006) in the nasal mask group, 0.95 (95% CI 0.27-3.29, P = 0.093) in the alternating use group, and 0.40 (95% CI 0.30-0.53, P < 0.0001) in the hydrocolloid dressing group.

Conclusion: The incidence of nasal injury was lower in the nasal mask group compared to the nasal prong group. However, the effect of alternating use of nasal masks and prongs on reducing the incidence of nasal injury was not significant. Prophylactic use of hydrocolloid dressings had a significant effect on reducing the incidence of nasal injury in preterm infants. However, the limited number of existing studies and the small sample sizes of the included studies restricted the generalizability of the conclusions. Future research should further optimize the standardization of interventions and conduct multicenter, large-sample randomized controlled trials to promote continuous improvement in clinical nursing practice.

Keywords: Hydrocolloid dressing; Nasal injury; Nasal mask; Nasal prongs; Newborns; Positive pressure ventilation; Preterm infants; Systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: Not applicable. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flowchart of Literature Screening Process
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Risk of Bias Graph
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Summary Risk of Bias Graph
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Forest Plot for Nasal Injury Caused by Nasal Masks
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Forest Plot for CPAP Failure Caused by Nasal Masks
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Forest Plot for Nasal Injury with Alternating Use of Nasal Prongs and Nasal Masks
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
Forest Plot for Prevention of Nasal Injury with Hydrocolloid Dressings
Fig. 8
Fig. 8
Sensitivity Analysis of Nasal Injury Caused by Nasal Masks
Fig. 9
Fig. 9
Forest Plot for Nasal Injury Caused by Nasal Masks After Exclusion of Certain Studies
Fig. 10
Fig. 10
Funnel Plot for Publication Bias
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Prakash R, de Paoli AG, Davis PG, et al. Bubble devices versus other pressure sources for nasal continuous positive airway pressure in preterm infants [J]. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2023;3(3):Cd015130. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Massa-Buck B, Rastogi D, Rastogi S. Complications associated with incorrect use of nasal CPAP [J]. J Perinatol. 2023;43(8):975–81. - PubMed
    1. Dai T, Lv L, Liu X, et al. Nasal Pressure Injuries Due to Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Treatment in Newborns: A Prospective Observational Study [J]. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2020;47(1):26–31. - PubMed
    1. Boyar V. Pressure Injuries of the Nose and Columella in Preterm Neonates Receiving Noninvasive Ventilation via a Specialized Nasal Cannula: A Retrospective Comparison Cohort Study [J]. J wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2020;47(2):111–6. - PubMed
    1. Rezaei P, Jafari-Mianaei S, Sadeghnia A, et al. Protective Dressings, Injury, and Device Failure in Preterm Infants Receiving Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure: a Randomized Controlled Trial [J]. Adv Skin Wound Care. 2021;34(9):1–6. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources