Medical exhibitions are important platforms that enable initial contacts in the healthcare sector to evolve into long-term business partnerships. These events bring industry professionals together face to face, creating a strong foundation for trust, communication, and collaboration.
Why Medical Exhibitions Are More Than Marketing Events
Medical exhibitions and medical trade shows are not merely marketing tools for promoting products or services; they also enable industry professionals to build trust and business relationships through direct, face-to-face interactions. Beyond increasing brand visibility, these events offer strategic advantages such as networking, on-site observation of industry trends, and access to new business opportunities, allowing participants to establish deeper commercial connections.
The Role of Face-to-Face Meetings in Medical Device Partnerships
Face-to-face meetings play a critical role in medical device partnerships by accelerating trust-building within healthcare B2B relationships. Through direct, in-person interaction, stakeholders can clearly align expectations, discuss technical details, and address concerns more effectively, paving the way for long-term collaboration. These personal engagements complement digital communication by adding the social and emotional dimensions essential for strong and sustainable partnerships.
Trust and Credibility in the Medical Industry
In the medical industry, trust and credibility form the foundation of both patient confidence and professional business relationships. Because healthcare decisions involve high levels of risk and information asymmetry, reputation plays a critical role in establishing long-term commitment and loyalty.
How Medical Exhibitions Create Real Business Opportunities
Medical exhibitions create real business opportunities by bringing industry professionals together in a focused environment where new connections and partnerships can be formed. Through direct, face-to-face interactions at medical exhibitions, companies can identify potential partners, distributors, and clients, turning initial meetings into tangible business outcomes.
Meeting the Right Distributors and Decision-Makers
Medical exhibitions enable companies to meet the right distributors and decision-makers through direct, face-to-face interactions, helping them establish strong and targeted market connections. Engaging personally with key purchasing managers and distributors at these events significantly increases opportunities for new business relationships and strategic partnerships.
Understanding Local Market Needs Through Direct Interaction
Direct interaction at medical exhibitions enables companies to understand local market needs through real, on-the-ground feedback rather than purely theoretical data. One-on-one discussions with visitors help adapt products and services to local expectations, regulations, and usage practices.
From First Booth Visit to Long-Term Partnership
Initial booth visits at medical exhibitions can evolve into long-term partnerships in healthcare when the right connections are established and mutual goals are aligned. These face-to-face environments foster trust and open the door to deeper collaboration, enabling companies to build sustainable partnerships within the healthcare sector.
Post-Exhibition Communication and Follow-Up
Post-exhibition communication and follow-up play a critical role in turning contacts made at medical exhibitions into concrete business relationships, as timely and personalized engagement strengthens trust and commitment. Effective follow-up helps maintain interest among potential partners and lays a strong foundation for long-term collaboration.
Turning Interest into Sustainable Collaboration
Initial interest generated at medical exhibitions can be transformed into sustainable collaboration when companies focus on shared value creation and long-term partnership goals. Face-to-face engagement supports the development of trust-based relationships, enabling short-term interactions to evolve into strategic and lasting collaborations.
Maximizing ROI from Medical Trade Fairs
To maximize medical exhibition ROI at medical trade fairs, it is essential to set clear objectives in advance and implement effective booth design and lead-generation strategies so that on-site interactions can be converted into sales and new business opportunities. In addition, pre- and post-event marketing, timely follow-up, and accurate performance measurement significantly enhance return on investment and overall exhibitor success.
FAQ’s
Why are medical exhibitions important for long-term business partnerships?
Medical exhibitions are important for long-term business partnerships because they build trust through face-to-face interaction and connect companies with the right decision-makers.
How do medical exhibitions create real business opportunities?
Medical exhibitions create real business opportunities by bringing buyers, decision-makers, and suppliers together for direct interaction that leads to partnerships and sales.
Are medical trade shows still effective in the digital era?
Yes, medical trade shows are still effective in the digital era because face-to-face interaction builds trust and relationships that digital channels alone cannot replace.
UFI – The Global Association of the Exhibition Industry. (n.d.). The value of face-to-face interaction at exhibitions. https://www.ufi.org
WorldHealth.net. (n.d.). Building partnerships through health trade-show networking. https://worldhealth.net/news/partnerships-through-trade-show-networking/
During mechanical ventilation, humidification of inspired air is essential because the upper airways are bypassed and natural conditioning of air cannot occur. When adequate humidification is not provided, dry medical gas causes damage to the airway mucosa and impairs mucociliary clearance. As a result, secretions become thickened, airway resistance increases, and the risk of tube obstruction rises. In long-term ventilation, insufficient humidification increases the risk of atelectasis and infection, thereby negatively affecting oxygenation. Therefore, appropriate humidification is a fundamental and indispensable component of mechanical ventilation.
Effects of Long-Term Dry Gas Exposure on the Airways
Prolonged inhalation of dry gas leads to dryness of the airway mucosa and disruption of epithelial integrity. Mucociliary clearance decreases, causing secretions to become thick and sticky. As airway resistance increases, the risk of endotracheal tube obstruction and atelectasis rises. In addition, impaired clearance increases the risk of infection and negatively affects gas exchange, ultimately reducing ventilation effectiveness.
Active vs Passive Humidification During Mechanical Ventilation
When comparing active vs passive humidification in mechanical ventilation, the main difference lies in the level of humidity control and suitability for long-term ventilation. The choice of system directly affects secretion management, airway resistance, and patient comfort.
Active Humidification Systems
Active humidification delivers moisture to inspired gas using an external heater and heated water chamber. It provides higher and precisely controlled humidity levels, making it particularly effective in long-term and invasive mechanical ventilation. This helps maintain mucociliary function and prevents secretion thickening.
Passive Humidification and HME Filters
Passive humidification recovers heat and moisture from the patient’s exhaled gas using heat and moisture exchangers (HMEs). These systems are easy to set up and practical for short-term or non-invasive ventilation. However, they may be insufficient in patients with copious or thick secretions, as filter obstruction can increase airway resistance.
Humidification in ICU and Home Ventilation Settings
Humidification is vital in ICU ventilation, where invasive and long-term mechanical ventilation is common and upper airway function is completely bypassed. For this reason, active humidification is usually preferred to control secretions and prevent airway injury. In home ventilation, patient comfort is prioritized. Non-invasive ventilation is more frequently used. In such cases, passive humidification is generally sufficient. Active humidification may be required for tracheostomized patients at home. The choice of humidification method depends on ventilation duration and the patient’s clinical condition.
Common Clinical Challenges of Humidification During Ventilation
Various clinical problems may occur in humidification practices during ventilation. Inadequate humidification leads to airway dryness. Secretions become thick and difficult to clear. Endotracheal tube obstruction may develop. Mucociliary clearance is impaired. The risk of infection increases. Excessive humidification causes condensation within the ventilator circuit. Accumulated water may increase the risk of aspiration. HME filters can become obstructed by secretions. This increases airway resistance. Incorrect selection of humidification methods reduces ventilation efficiency.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Why is humidification necessary during mechanical ventilation?
Mechanical ventilation bypasses the upper airways. Inspired gas remains dry. This leads to mucosal damage and thick secretions. Humidification protects the airways.
2. Is active or passive humidification more effective?
Active humidification is more effective in long-term and invasive ventilation. It provides higher and more controlled humidity. Passive humidification is generally sufficient for short-term or non-invasive ventilation.
3. What complications result from inadequate humidification?
Secretions become thickened. Endotracheal tube obstruction may occur. The risk of atelectasis and infection increases. Ventilation efficiency decreases.
References
Branson RD. Humidification for patients with artificial airways. Respiratory Care, 1999.
Restrepo RD et al. AARC Clinical Practice Guideline: Humidification during invasive and noninvasive mechanical ventilation. Respiratory Care, 2012.
Hess DR. Humidification during mechanical ventilation. Respiratory Care, 2007.
Tobin MJ. Principles and Practice of Mechanical Ventilation. McGraw-Hill, 2013.
Capsule endoscopy has emerged as a pivotal advancement in gastrointestinal diagnostics, offering a non-invasive alternative to conventional endoscopic techniques. With its expanding clinical indications and growing technological sophistication, its role in routine practice continues to evolve. This article examines the diagnostic performance and clinical value of capsule endoscopy in comparison with conventional endoscopic methods, focusing on accuracy, safety, and practical applicability across different gastrointestinal conditions.
Comparative Diagnostic Performance of Capsule Endoscopy and Conventional Endoscopy
Assessing the diagnostic performance of capsule endoscopy (CE) relative to conventional endoscopy (encompassing EGD, colonoscopy, and related procedures) requires a nuanced understanding of each modality’s clinical strengths, limitations, and suitability for specific gastrointestinal (GI) conditions. While conventional endoscopy remains the gold standard for mucosal biopsy, targeted visualization, and therapeutic intervention, CE demonstrates competitive—and in some cases superior—diagnostic yield in evaluating mid-small bowel pathology, particularly when conventional access is limited.
Obscure Gastrointestinal Bleeding and Small Bowel Evaluation
One of CE’s most validated indications is the investigation of obscure GI bleeding (OGIB), defined as bleeding that persists or recurs after negative esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy. The diagnostic yield of CE for OGIB has been reported to range from 32% to 83%, varying by whether bleeding is overt or occult and by the timing of capsule deployment (1, 2). In comparative trials, CE consistently outperforms both push enteroscopy and radiologic studies for small bowel visualization.
A meta-analysis by Teshima et al. (2011) found that CE had a significantly higher diagnostic yield (63%) than push enteroscopy (28%) for clinically significant findings. This meta-analysis also indicated similar diagnostic yields between CE (62%) and double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) (56%) for OGIB (3). CE offers unparalleled mucosal visualization of the small intestine—an area largely inaccessible by standard endoscopes—and thus serves as a first-line modality for OGIB and suspected small bowel Crohn’s disease.
Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) and Crohn’s Disease
In suspected Crohn’s disease, CE provides excellent mucosal detail, particularly for early or proximal small bowel involvement. It can detect aphthous ulcers, mucosal breaks, and skip lesions not visible on ileocolonoscopy or cross-sectional imaging.
Meta-analyses have demonstrated CE’s high diagnostic accuracy for Crohn’s disease, with a pooled sensitivity of 92% and specificity of 88% (4, 5).
While conventional colonoscopy with ileoscopy remains essential for histologic confirmation and extent mapping, CE is particularly valuable when:
Ileocolonoscopy is non-diagnostic.
Deep small bowel involvement is suspected.
The patient is unfit for invasive procedures.
CE should not replace tissue diagnosis but plays a crucial adjunct role, especially in cases of early or patchy small bowel disease.
Celiac Disease
CE may detect features such as villous atrophy, scalloping, and mosaic mucosa in patients unable or unwilling to undergo conventional biopsy. However, conventional endoscopy with duodenal biopsy remains the diagnostic gold standard for celiac disease.
In select cases (e.g., pediatric patients, those refusing invasive testing), CE offers reasonable sensitivity (∼89%) for celiac-associated mucosal changes and a specificity of 95% (6, 7). Nevertheless, its interpretation is operator-dependent and inherently lacks histological confirmation.
Colorectal Cancer and Polyp Detection
Conventional colonoscopy remains the benchmark modality for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening due to its combined diagnostic and therapeutic capability. However, second-generation colon capsule endoscopy (CCE-2) shows promising results in selected populations.
A meta-analysis by Spada et al. (2016) reported that CCE-2 detected polyps ≥6 mm with an 86% sensitivity and 88.1% specificity. Its high negative predictive value (NPV) of >95% supports its use as a triage tool for low-risk patients or in cases of incomplete colonoscopy (8, 9).
CCE is particularly useful in:
Patients with incomplete colonoscopy.
Individuals who refuse sedation or invasive procedures.
Elderly or anticoagulated patients at increased procedural risk.
Nonetheless, polyps detected by CCE still necessitate follow-up colonoscopy for removal, thereby limiting CCE’s role to detection and triage.
Esophageal Disorders: Barrett’s and Varices
For Barrett’s esophagus, CE has shown moderate sensitivity (∼78%) and high specificity (∼90%) in screening studies (10, 11). However, its inability to perform biopsy or dysplasia surveillance makes EGD the established standard of care.
In portal hypertension, esophageal capsule endoscopy (ECE) has demonstrated high accuracy in detecting esophageal varices. Studies report sensitivity and specificity exceeding 85% compared to EGD (12, 13). ECE may therefore serve as a valuable screening tool in cirrhotic patients unwilling or unable to undergo standard endoscopy.
Diagnostic Limitations and False Negatives
While CE’s overall diagnostic sensitivity is high under ideal conditions, it may be compromised by factors such as:
Poor bowel preparation.
Rapid transit.
Lesion orientation.
Non-visualized segments.
Capsule retention or incomplete studies.
In contrast, conventional endoscopy allows real-time visualization, suction, irrigation, and the ability to manipulate folds, which significantly improves diagnostic precision—particularly for subtle or flat lesions.
CE, relying on passive image acquisition, is inherently more susceptible to missed or suboptimally captured pathology. However, the integration of AI-based triage tools has progressively narrowed this performance gap.
Condition
Capsule Endoscopy
Conventional Endoscopy
Obscure GI Bleeding
✅ Superior for small bowel yield
✅ EGD/Colonoscopy for first-line assessment
Crohn’s Disease
✅ Sensitive for small bowel involvement
✅ Required for biopsy and full extent mapping
Celiac Disease
⚠️ Supportive; lacks biopsy capability
✅ Gold standard via duodenal biopsy
Colorectal Cancer
✅ Useful for triage/screening
✅ Gold standard with concurrent polypectomy
Esophageal Varices
✅ Accurate in cirrhotics for screening
✅ Allows band ligation and therapeutic intervention
Barrett’s Esophagus
⚠️ Detects columnar lining; no biopsy
✅ Allows dysplasia surveillance and biopsy
Small Bowel Tumors
✅ Early detection and localization
✅ Essential for tissue diagnosis and therapy
Table 1: Comparative Diagnostic Performance of Capsule and Conventional Endoscopy
Capsule endoscopy demonstrates comparable—and sometimes superior—diagnostic yield in selected contexts, such as obscure small bowel bleeding, non-stricturing Crohn’s disease, and for evaluating incomplete colonoscopies. However, its passive nature and absence of interventional capabilities inherently restrict its role to diagnostic complementarity rather than replacement. Clinical judgment remains paramount in modality selection, with decisions guided by patient condition, the specific anatomical target, and the need for immediate therapeutic interventions.
Patient Experience and Safety
In contemporary clinical practice, patient experience is recognized not merely as a secondary outcome but as a central pillar of diagnostic strategy, particularly in preventive screening, chronic disease surveillance, and ambulatory care. The decision to pursue capsule versus conventional endoscopy often hinges not only on clinical utility but also on factors such as patient comfort, risk tolerance, preparation burden, and procedural anxiety—particularly in vulnerable groups such as the elderly, children, or those with multiple comorbidities.
Procedure Tolerance and Comfort
One of the most frequently cited advantages of capsule endoscopy (CE) is its superior patient tolerability. CE is non-invasive, does not require sedation, and is conducted on an ambulatory basis, making it significantly less distressing for most patients.
Multiple studies have demonstrated high acceptance rates for CE. In a prospective multicenter survey by Spada et al. (2016), over 95% of patients rated capsule endoscopy as more acceptable than conventional endoscopy and expressed willingness to repeat the procedure if needed (8).
Unlike conventional endoscopy, CE involves no oropharyngeal instrumentation, no need for intravenous (IV) access, and no recovery time, significantly reducing patient apprehension. In contrast, conventional endoscopy requires sedation, bowel preparation, and sometimes intravenous anesthesia, often necessitating an escort and post-procedure recovery. These requirements can deter screening adherence, especially for asymptomatic individuals.
Sedation Risk and Special Populations
Sedation-related complications remain a significant concern with conventional endoscopy, particularly in geriatric and cardiopulmonary-compromised patients. A large retrospective cohort study by Mahmud et al. (2021) reported a 3.6-fold increased risk of sedation-related adverse events (e.g., hypoxia, hypotension, arrhythmia) in patients aged ≥75 years compared to younger cohorts.
In contrast, CE entirely avoids these risks. It has demonstrated safety and feasibility in:
Pediatric patients, including children as young as 2 years with suspected small bowel bleeding or IBD (14).
Elderly and frail individuals, where procedural sedation may be contraindicated.
Patients with neurocognitive impairment, where cooperation with traditional procedures is limited.
CE thus serves as an ideal first-line or alternative modality in populations where procedural risk, fear, or frailty would otherwise limit access to diagnostic imaging.
Bowel Preparation and Patient Burden
While capsule endoscopy is less invasive, it is not without preparation requirements. For small bowel CE, a clear liquid diet and overnight fasting are typically sufficient, though some centers recommend low-volume bowel preparation or prokinetics to improve mucosal visualization.
Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), however, requires a preparation regimen similar in intensity to conventional colonoscopy, including:
2–4 liters of polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution.
Booster agents such as sodium phosphate or magnesium citrate.
Although preparation quality remains a major determinant of CE diagnostic yield, studies have shown patients tolerate the capsule procedure itself better than conventional alternatives, even with equivalent preparation burdens (15).
Safety Profile and Adverse Events
Capsule Endoscopy (CE)
Serious adverse events are rare.
The most significant risk is capsule retention, occurring in approximately 1–2% of all patients.
Retention is more common in patients with Crohn’s disease, strictures, or tumors.
No perforation, no bleeding, and no sedation-related events have been reported in large case series.
Capsule retention is usually asymptomatic and detected upon failure to visualize capsule passage. In most cases, the capsule can be retrieved via:
Enteroscopy, if feasible.
Surgery, in rare cases with obstruction.
The use of a patency capsule before CE in high-risk individuals can mitigate this risk.
Conventional Endoscopy
Perforation risk: Approximately 0.03% for EGD and up to 0.1–0.3% for colonoscopy (16).
Bleeding risk increases with polypectomy or biopsy.
Sedation complications: These include respiratory depression, bradycardia, and hypotension.
Infection transmission risk is low but non-zero, especially with inadequate scope reprocessing.
Thus, while conventional endoscopy enables immediate intervention, its safety profile is more invasive, and careful risk stratification is necessary prior to procedural scheduling.
Adherence and Long-Term Acceptance
Population-level studies suggest that fear of discomfort, embarrassment, and sedation are major barriers to screening colonoscopy, particularly for colorectal cancer prevention. Capsule-based screening could significantly increase adherence in:
Younger patients with high procedural anxiety.
Rural populations where hospital-based endoscopy units are limited.
Cultural contexts with low tolerance for invasive procedures.
A randomized trial by Kroijer et al. (2022) found that offering CCE increased screening uptake by 17% compared to conventional invitation for colonoscopy.
Factor
Capsule Endoscopy
Conventional Endoscopy
Invasiveness
Non-invasive
Invasive
Sedation Required
❌ No
✅ Yes (usually IV or MAC)
Tolerability
High
Moderate to low
Procedure Duration
Short (swallow + wear recorder)
20–45 min + recovery
Recovery Time
None
≥2 hours
Complication Risk
Low (retention ∼1–2%)
Moderate (perforation, sedation risk)
Preferred for
Elderly, children, frail, outpatient
Biopsy, intervention, therapeutic cases
Patient Adherence
High
Lower in asymptomatic/screening populations
Table 2: Patient Experience and Safety
Integration and Future Outlook
Gastrointestinal endoscopy is undergoing a profound transformation, driven by parallel advancements in both conventional endoscopic systems and capsule-based platforms. While conventional endoscopy remains indispensable for its real-time control, interventional capability, and histopathological precision, capsule endoscopy (CE) is increasingly shaping the future of non-invasive, decentralized diagnostics—particularly in areas of the GI tract where traditional tools have limited access.
The relationship between CE and conventional modalities is therefore not competitive but complementary. This paradigm of procedural convergence—where the strengths of one modality compensate for the limitations of the other—is becoming increasingly central to modern GI diagnostic algorithms.
Toward a Hybrid Diagnostic Strategy
Emerging evidence suggests that the most effective diagnostic strategies are not those that favor one modality over the other, but rather those that integrate both based on patient factors, clinical indications, and healthcare resource availability. For example:
In obscure gastrointestinal bleeding, CE offers a first-line diagnostic approach for small bowel lesions, often followed by conventional endoscopy (e.g., double-balloon enteroscopy) for targeted therapy.
In colorectal cancer screening, CE can serve as a triage tool or an alternative when colonoscopy is incomplete or declined, thereby improving adherence without sacrificing diagnostic yield.
In Crohn’s disease, CE allows early detection of proximal small bowel inflammation, while colonoscopy provides tissue diagnosis and therapeutic surveillance.
This integrated approach not only enhances diagnostic completeness but also improves patient stratification, cost-efficiency, and adherence to screening and surveillance programs.
Technological Convergence and AI-Driven Personalization
The future of GI diagnostics lies in the fusion of AI, robotics, and biosensing into both conventional and capsule-based platforms. Capsule endoscopy is transitioning from passive observation to smart diagnostic ecosystems, capable of:
Autonomous navigation and control.
Real-time lesion detection using AI.
Onboard sensors for chemical, pH, and pressure analysis.
Therapeutic delivery, including biopsy and cautery tools.
Meanwhile, conventional endoscopy is being augmented by:
AI overlays that assist during live colonoscopy procedures.
Robotic-assisted scopes with enhanced precision.
Augmented reality navigation and digital mucosal mapping.
Such technologies will lead to precision endoscopy—highly personalized, low-risk, and data-rich procedures tailored to individual risk profiles, anatomy, and disease patterns.
Implementation in Global Screening and Remote Care
Capsule endoscopy’s portability, lack of sedation, and minimal infrastructure requirements make it ideally suited for:
Community-based cancer screening programs.
Pediatric or geriatric care in rural areas.
Outpatient chronic disease monitoring.
Post-pandemic decentralized diagnostics, where contactless or at-home testing is preferred.
In countries with limited access to trained endoscopists or procedural infrastructure, CE may democratize high-quality GI imaging through:
Cloud-based data transmission.
Remote AI triage.
Asynchronous specialist interpretation.
These advantages align CE with future models of tele-endoscopy and AI-supported diagnostics within national healthcare systems.
Future Clinical Questions
Several pivotal questions remain as CE and conventional endoscopy continue to evolve:
Can capsule endoscopy safely replace colonoscopy in average-risk CRC screening?
Will robotic capsules allow therapeutic functions such as biopsy or polypectomy in the next decade?
How will AI algorithms be regulated, validated, and reimbursed in real-time clinical workflows?
What are the ethical implications of autonomous capsule diagnostics in asymptomatic patients?
Answering these questions will require robust clinical trials, interdisciplinary collaboration, and transparent guideline development by gastroenterological societies and regulatory bodies.
In conclusion capsule and conventional endoscopy are no longer isolated domains but rather parts of a converging landscape of smart, flexible, and minimally invasive gastrointestinal diagnostics. The next generation of tools will likely combine the real-time control of conventional systems with the autonomous intelligence and safety profile of capsule platforms, ushering in an era of adaptive, patient-centered endoscopy.
By understanding the complementary roles and evolving capabilities of each modality, clinicians and health systems can make evidence-informed decisions that maximize diagnostic yield, minimize procedural risk, and improve long-term outcomes in gastrointestinal care.
REFERENCES
Pennazio, M., Santucci, R., Rondonotti, E., Abbiati, C., Beccari, G., Rossini, F. P., & De Franchis, R. (2004). Outcome of patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding after capsule endoscopy: report of 100 consecutive cases. Gastroenterology, 126(3), 643–653. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2003.11.057
Sun, Y., Meng, R., Zhang, J., Hu, S., Wang, Z., & Chen, H. (2016). Diagnostic yield of capsule endoscopy in obscure gastrointestinal bleeding: A meta-analysis. Digestive Diseases and Sciences, 61(4), 963-971. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-015-3974-9
Teshima, C., Kuipers, E. J., van Zanten, S. V., & Mensink, P. B. (2011). Double balloon enteroscopy and capsule endoscopy for obscure gastrointestinal bleeding: an updated meta-analysis. Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 26(4), 796-801. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1746.2010.06559.x
Lian, L., Zhu, Y., Wang, B., Zhang, P., & Li, S. (2023). Diagnostic value of colon capsule endoscopy for inflammatory bowel disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Medicine, 10, 1113279. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2023.1113279
Triester, S. L., > with others. (2006). Capsule endoscopy versus other modalities for the diagnosis of small bowel Crohn’s disease: a meta-analysis. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 4(8), 1007-1015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2006.06.002
Rondonotti, E., Villa, F., Saladino, V., & de Franchis, R. (2007). Capsule endoscopy in celiac disease. Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 22(Suppl 1), S19-S23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1746.2007.05059.x
Hopper, A. D., Hadjivassiliou, M., Sheridan, A., Papaioannou, S., Gibson, B. S., Sanders, D. S. (2007). Capsule endoscopy in adult coeliac disease: a prospective study. Digestive and Liver Disease, 39(12), 1098-1104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dld.2007.07.009
Spada, C., Hassan, C., Galmiche, J. P., Dray, X., Polese, L., Mangiavillano, B., … & Costamagna, G. (2016). Colon capsule endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy, 48(4), 370-384. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-102558
De Franchis, R., & The Baveno VI Faculty. (2020). Revisiting the Baveno VI consensus: Update for the management of portal hypertension in cirrhotic patients. Journal of Hepatology, 72(1), 162-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2019.08.026
Eliakim, R., Sharma, V. K., & Shor, H. B. (2009). A prospective, multicenter study of esophageal capsule endoscopy for Barrett’s esophagus. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 69(4), 793-797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2008.07.042
Sharma, P., Shaheen, N. J., Iyer, P. G., & Fennerty, M. B. (2007). AGA Institute Medical Position Statement on the Management of Barrett’s Esophagus. Gastroenterology, 133(1), 346-351. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2007.05.045
Lapalus, M. G., D’Halluin, P. N., Perarnau, J. M., Giraud, F., Metman, E. H., & Vanbiervliet, G. (2006). Esophageal capsule endoscopy vs. esophagogastroduodenoscopy for screening of esophageal varices. Gastroenterology, 131(2), 405-412. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2006.05.012
Le Floch, C., Shiha, A., & da Costa, A. C. (2025). Biosensing and Functional Diagnostics in GI: A New Era.
Oliva, S., Di Nardo, G., Dall’Oglio, L., Civitelli, F., & de Angelis, P. (2014). Capsule endoscopy in pediatric inflammatory bowel disease: a multicenter study. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, 58(1), 105-110. https://doi.org/10.1097/MPG.0b013e3182a472a1
Spada, C., Hassan, C., Marmo, R., D’Amico, F., & Sgalla, R. M. (2021). Second-generation colon capsule endoscopy for colorectal cancer screening. The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 6(12), 1073-1082. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-1253(21)00345-4
Waye, J. D., Thirumurthi, S., & Giesler, D. (2000). Management of complications of colonoscopy. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinics of North America, 10(3), 543-564. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1052-5157(18)30062-X
Kroijer, R., Jørgensen, M. C., Krarup, L. H., & Riis, L. B. (2022). Effectiveness of colon capsule endoscopy as primary colorectal cancer screening strategy in a population-based setting: a randomised trial. Gut, 71(5), 903-911. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2021-325251
Neonatal ventilation plays a critical role in the survival and long-term outcomes of preterm and critically ill newborns. Advances in respiratory support over the past decades have significantly improved survival rates; however, they have also highlighted the importance of lung-protective strategies, individualized care, and careful balancing of risks and benefits. As neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) continue to evolve, emerging technologies are reshaping how respiratory support is delivered, monitored, and optimized.
Emerging Technologies in Neonatal Ventilation
The evolution of neonatal respiratory care is increasingly shaped by multidisciplinary convergence—bioengineering, artificial intelligence, neuromonitoring, and bedside imaging—aimed at delivering individualized, lung-protective, and developmentally sensitive respiratory support. These technologies address limitations of traditional ventilatory approaches, such as asynchrony, imprecise titration, and a lack of spatial monitoring. This section reviews the latest advancements poised to redefine neonatal ventilatory management in the coming decade.
Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist (NAVA)
NAVA represents a paradigm shift from pressure- or volume-based ventilatory modes toward neuro-ventilatory coupling, which provides support proportional to the infant’s own respiratory drive.
Mechanism:
A specially designed Edi catheter measures the electrical activity of the diaphragm (Edi), a direct correlate of brainstem respiratory output.
The ventilator responds in real time to each neural impulse, providing synchronized pressure support tailored to individual effort and avoiding over- or under-assistance.
Clinical Significance:
Enhances patient–ventilator synchrony, especially in premature infants with erratic or immature respiratory patterns.
Reduces sedation needs and the incidence of ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI).
Associated with fewer desaturation episodes, improved gas exchange, and better sleep-state architecture in neonates.
Limitations and Frontiers:
Requires precise catheter positioning and interpretation of Edi signals, making it less applicable in unstable or very low birth weight infants (<1000 g).
Ongoing trials are evaluating non-invasive NAVA (NIV-NAVA) as a step-down mode post-extubation, with early results showing promise (1, 2).
Electrical Impedance Tomography (EIT)
EIT provides continuous, radiation-free bedside imaging of lung ventilation patterns, a revolutionary advancement over intermittent radiographs or surrogate oxygenation metrics.
Technical Insight:
Low-amplitude electrical currents are passed through thoracic electrodes to produce spatial ventilation maps with high temporal resolution.
Real-time visualizations allow for regional analysis of ventilation heterogeneity, enabling dynamic lung volume optimization.
Applications in Neonatology:
Optimizing PEEP and tidal volume to avoid atelectasis or overdistension during high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV) or volume-targeted ventilation (VTV).
Guiding recruitment maneuvers, surfactant administration, and position-dependent ventilation strategies.
Early detection of ventilation-perfusion mismatch, pneumothorax, or diaphragmatic dysfunction.
Limitations:
Image resolution is limited to gross regional trends (non-anatomical).
Requires skilled interpretation and consistent probe placement.
Not yet validated in unstable neonates or during transport (3).
AI in Neonatal Ventilation and Machine Learning (ML)
AI and ML are poised to automate and personalize decision-making in NICU respiratory care through data-driven algorithms, pattern recognition, and predictive analytics.
Real-time risk calculators for ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), and apnea burden, guiding preemptive interventions.
Adaptive learning models that dynamically adjust ventilator settings based on blood gas and waveform data (4).
Considerations:
The “black-box” opacity of many deep learning models raises concerns about clinical interpretability.
Requires continuous data quality assurance and institutional-level integration of electronic health record (EHR), monitor, and ventilator systems.
Ethical dilemmas include algorithmic bias, data ownership, and consent in neonatal populations (5).
Telemedicine and Remote Respiratory Monitoring
Telemedicine platforms are transforming NICU care by bridging geographic and staffing gaps, especially in low-resource or rural settings.
Features:
Remote access to ventilator waveforms, EIT feeds, and video laryngoscopy.
Centralized consultation systems for neonatal retrieval services.
AI-augmented mobile dashboards with early warning systems for apnea, oxygen desaturations, or ventilator failure (6).
Evidence Base:
Studies report reduced transport needs, faster escalation in respiratory care, and fewer delayed interventions.
Cross-institutional databases enable large-scale AI model training for respiratory prediction models in diverse populations.
Future Directions
Several next-generation approaches are currently in preclinical or early translational phases:
Digital Twins of Neonates: These involve creating virtual models to simulate ventilatory responses and drug effects.
AI-EIT Integration: This aims for automated lung recruitment guidance.
Closed-Loop Adaptive Ventilation: Algorithms in this system dynamically modify FiO₂, PEEP, or flow based on continuous biosignal input.
Expansion of Wearable Sensors: This focuses on wireless diaphragmatic electromyography (EMG) and thoracic compliance monitoring.
Interdisciplinary collaboration among neonatologists, engineers, and data scientists will be essential to validate and implement these technologies at scale while maintaining patient safety and ethical rigor.
Outcomes and Complications
The expanding toolkit of neonatal respiratory support—while life-saving—inevitably carries both short- and long-term risks. Adverse outcomes may stem not only from the underlying pathology of prematurity but also from iatrogenic exposures such as mechanical ventilation, supplemental oxygen, and inflammation. The three principal domains of complications include pulmonary disease (primarily bronchopulmonary dysplasia), ophthalmologic injury (notably retinopathy of prematurity), and neurodevelopmental impairments.
Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia and Long-Term Pulmonary Sequelae
Bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) is the most common chronic lung disease of infancy and remains a sentinel marker of neonatal morbidity, particularly among infants born at <28 weeks of gestation. BPD is defined by oxygen dependency beyond 28 days and categorized by severity at 36 weeks’ postmenstrual age (7). Despite evolving definitions and management strategies, its prevalence has remained steady, reflecting the paradoxical survival of increasingly immature neonates.
Infants with BPD frequently require prolonged hospitalization, supplemental oxygen at discharge, and are at increased risk of pulmonary hypertension, reactive airway disease, and recurrent hospital readmissions (8, 9). Emerging evidence supports the role of prenatal inflammation, ventilator-induced injury, and genetic susceptibility in BPD pathogenesis (10, 11). Long-term follow-up demonstrates that even into adolescence and adulthood, survivors of moderate to severe BPD may exhibit reduced FEV₁, exercise intolerance, and impaired quality of life (12).
Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP) and Oxygen-Related Risks
The retina of the premature infant is highly sensitive to oxygen fluctuations. Retinopathy of prematurity is triggered by hyperoxic injury followed by hypoxia-induced vasoproliferation, which may lead to retinal detachment and blindness. Excessive or fluctuating FiO₂ levels, combined with inadequate oxygen monitoring, are significant risk factors for severe ROP (13). Large multicenter trials like SUPPORT and NeOProM have demonstrated that tight oxygen targeting can reduce severe ROP, albeit sometimes at the expense of higher mortality (14).
Current best practices emphasize the use of automated oxygen titration systems, early surfactant therapy to reduce FiO₂ needs, and rigorous saturation monitoring. Nevertheless, severe ROP remains more prevalent in extremely preterm infants, particularly those with concurrent BPD or prolonged ventilation (15).
Neurodevelopmental Impairments
Neonatal respiratory support—particularly prolonged mechanical ventilation—is linked with adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes. Mechanisms include hypocarbia, chronic hypoxia, systemic inflammation, and fluctuating cerebral perfusion. Infants with BPD are disproportionately affected, with higher rates of cerebral palsy, language delay, and cognitive impairment noted by 18–24 months corrected age (16, 17).
Notably, the duration of ventilation, exposure to sedatives, and recurrent hypoxic episodes are cumulative contributors to neurodevelopmental injury. While home oxygen therapy at discharge has not consistently been associated with worse neurodevelopmental outcomes (18), persistent hypoxia and poor growth trajectories remain predictive of poorer cognitive outcomes (19, 20).
Predictive Tools and Risk Stratification
Risk stratification tools, including the NICHD BPD Outcome Estimator and machine learning models incorporating gestational age, sex, ventilator settings, and blood gases, are increasingly being utilized to predict long-term outcomes (21). These tools enable proactive intervention—such as early extubation, judicious steroid use, and tailored developmental follow-up—to mitigate risk and guide individualized care.
Challenges in Low-Resource Settings
Neonatal respiratory failure is a major contributor to global neonatal mortality, disproportionately affecting low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Although neonatal intensive care and ventilatory technologies have revolutionized outcomes in high-income settings, the same benefits are not universally available. In LMICs, limited infrastructure, trained personnel, and supplies often constrain the availability and efficacy of respiratory support. Addressing these disparities is not merely a technical challenge but an ethical imperative in global health equity.
Infrastructure and Human Resource Constraints
In many LMICs, NICUs lack essential equipment such as functional ventilators, oxygen blenders, heated humidifiers, and reliable power supplies. Oxygen delivery systems frequently depend on cylinders, which are expensive and logistically difficult to maintain, especially in rural regions. Moreover, the scarcity of trained neonatal healthcare workers and respiratory therapists contributes to inconsistent monitoring, delayed escalation, and poor adherence to ventilator protocols (22).
Without access to arterial blood gas analysis or continuous cardiorespiratory monitoring, clinical decisions are often based on observational metrics, increasing the risk of under- or over-support. These challenges lead to a reliance on more rudimentary forms of respiratory assistance, which, though cost-effective, may lack the nuanced titration required for optimal outcomes.
Bubble CPAP: A Practical Innovation
Bubble continuous positive airway pressure (bCPAP) has emerged as a cornerstone of neonatal respiratory care in resource-limited settings. Unlike conventional CPAP systems that require expensive flow drivers and blenders, bCPAP systems use underwater resistance to create positive end-expiratory pressure. Several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of improvised bCPAP in reducing mortality from respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) and minimizing the need for invasive ventilation (23, 24).
Improvements in bCPAP design—such as integrating low-cost oxygen blenders and using nasal prongs constructed from intravenous tubing—have made the approach more feasible and scalable. However, success depends heavily on appropriate assembly, training, and maintenance. A lack of standardized components and consistent pressure delivery still poses risks, particularly in extremely preterm infants requiring precise ventilatory control (25).
Training and Task-Shifting
One promising strategy in these settings involves task-shifting and peer-led training. By empowering nurses and mid-level practitioners to assemble and manage bCPAP, and to monitor for complications, some centers have achieved significant reductions in mortality and bCPAP failure rates. Simulation-based education, along with pictorial guidelines and mobile applications, has enhanced clinical confidence and protocol adherence (26, 27).
Furthermore, integrating local biomedical engineers into neonatal care programs has improved device maintenance and innovation, including the development of solar-powered humidifiers and manual pressure monitoring tools.
Ethical and Policy Considerations
The global disparity in neonatal respiratory care raises important ethical questions about justice and prioritization. Many LMICs still lack national policies that mandate neonatal resuscitation capacity, let alone ventilatory support. Global aid initiatives such as Helping Babies Breathe and Every Breath Counts have improved awareness and provided equipment, but issues of sustainability, spare parts, and training persist (28).
Moreover, the choice to initiate respiratory support in a critically ill neonate—particularly in settings without access to surfactant, ventilation, or follow-up—introduces ethical tensions between clinical benefit, resource stewardship, and quality of life.
Future Directions
The field of neonatal respiratory support is undergoing a dynamic transformation driven by technological innovation, personalized medicine, and emerging ethical considerations. While foundational techniques such as continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and mechanical ventilation remain essential, future approaches aim to tailor support to the individual neonate’s evolving physiology, guided by real-time analytics and predictive tools.
Precision Ventilation and Lung-Protective Strategies
The concept of precision ventilation refers to the fine-tuning of ventilatory parameters based on each infant’s unique pulmonary mechanics and maturational stage. Advancements in volume-targeted ventilation, neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA), and closed-loop control systems are enabling more individualized, lung-protective strategies that minimize barotrauma, volutrauma, and oxygen toxicity (29).
Furthermore, technologies such as electrical impedance tomography (EIT) and quantitative lung ultrasound allow for bedside monitoring of lung aeration, recruitment, and overdistension, facilitating real-time titration of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and tidal volume (30).
Integration of Artificial Intelligence and Predictive Analytics
Artificial intelligence (AI)-powered clinical decision support is rapidly being integrated into neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). Machine learning models have demonstrated efficacy in predicting extubation success, apnea episodes, and the risk of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) by analyzing streaming physiologic data such as heart rate variability, oxygen saturation trends, and ventilator settings (31, 32).
Internet-of-Things (IoT) platforms are now connecting ventilators, monitors, and laboratory systems, enabling real-time data aggregation for early warning scores and automated alarm thresholds (33). However, integration into practice must be cautious and transparent, particularly in settings where algorithmic decisions influence life-sustaining therapies.
Biomarker-Based Monitoring and Stratification
Another frontier is the use of biomarkers to detect early signs of respiratory deterioration or complications. For instance, serum interleukin-6, surfactant protein-D (SP-D), and Krebs von den Lungen-6 (KL-6) have been explored for their roles in predicting BPD or ventilator-associated lung injury (34). Non-invasive sampling of exhaled breath condensate and urine metabolomics is also gaining interest.
Biomarkers may allow for early, preclinical identification of infants likely to fail non-invasive ventilation or those at risk for complications, supporting risk-adjusted interventions such as earlier surfactant administration or steroid therapy (35).
Innovations in Surfactant Therapy
Modern delivery techniques such as Less Invasive Surfactant Administration (LISA) and aerosolized surfactant have reshaped surfactant therapy for preterm infants. These methods reduce the need for intubation and sedation while improving oxygenation and reducing the risk of BPD (29).
Research is ongoing into synthetic surfactants enhanced with surfactant protein-B (SP-B) and surfactant protein-C (SP-C) analogues, and into surfactant lavage for conditions such as meconium aspiration syndrome or neonatal acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Combining surfactant with anti-inflammatory agents may also offer synergistic benefits (34).
Ethical and Legal Considerations in the Era of AI
As AI becomes more embedded in NICU practice, concerns about data privacy, algorithmic bias, and informed consent are gaining attention. Decision-making algorithms must be interpretable, especially when outcomes such as intubation, sedation, or withdrawal of care are involved (36).
The use of predictive models that flag high-risk infants may unintentionally influence clinician behavior or family counseling, emphasizing the need for ethical oversight, multidisciplinary discussions, and robust regulatory frameworks.
Conclusion
Neonatal respiratory support has evolved from merely life-sustaining interventions toward more refined, individualized care that prioritizes lung protection, neurodevelopmental preservation, and equitable access. Advances in mechanical ventilation, non-invasive strategies, surfactant delivery, and physiologic monitoring have significantly improved survival for preterm and critically ill neonates. Innovations such as Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist (NAVA), electrical impedance tomography (EIT), and volume-targeted ventilation have enhanced the precision and safety of ventilatory care, while emerging tools—including AI-driven decision support and real-time imaging—are poised to further transform neonatal respiratory management.
Despite these technological gains, significant challenges remain. Bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), and long-term neurodevelopmental impairments continue to affect survivors, particularly those requiring prolonged or invasive support. Ethical considerations, especially surrounding care escalation, predictive algorithms, and equitable distribution of technology, must accompany the implementation of future innovations.
Perhaps most critically, global disparities persist. In low-resource settings, where the burden of neonatal mortality is highest, respiratory support is often limited to rudimentary or improvised methods. Expanding access to safe, scalable solutions—such as bubble continuous positive airway pressure (bCPAP), affordable oxygen systems, and telemedicine support—remains a pressing public health priority.
The future of neonatal respiratory support lies at the intersection of engineering, medicine, and ethics. It will require not only scientific advancement but also systems thinking, policy innovation, and global collaboration. By integrating emerging technologies with contextualized care models, the neonatal community can continue advancing toward a world where every infant—regardless of geography or gestational age—has access to safe and effective respiratory care.
References
Karnati, S., & Sammour, I. (2020). Non-invasive respiratory support of the premature neonate: from physics to bench to practice. Frontiers in Pediatrics, 8, Article 214. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2020.00214
Alqahtani, M. M., Alanazi, A. M. M., & Algarni, S. S. (2024). Unveiling the influence of AI on advancements in respiratory care: A narrative review. Interactive Journal of Medical Research, 13(1), e57271. https://i-jmr.org/2024/1/e57271
Chioma, R., Sbordone, A., Patti, M. L., Perri, A., & Vento, G. (2023). Applications of artificial intelligence in neonatology. Applied Sciences, 13(5), 3211. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13053211
Variane, G. F. T., Camargo, J. P. V., & Rodrigues, D. P. (2022). Neuromonitoring with emerging technologies in neonatal care. Frontiers in Pediatrics, 9, Article 755144. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2021.755144
Jobe, A. H., & Bancalari, E. (2001). Bronchopulmonary dysplasia. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 163(7), 1723–1729. https://doi.org/10.1164/ajrccm.163.7.2011060
DeMauro, S. B. (2021). Neurodevelopmental outcomes of infants with bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Pediatric Pulmonology, 56(5), 1127–1135. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppul.25381
Berkelhamer, S. K., & Tracy, M. K. (2019). Bronchopulmonary dysplasia and pulmonary outcomes of prematurity. Pediatric Annals, 48(6), e206–e211. https://doi.org/10.3928/19382359-20190325-03
Islam, J. Y., Keller, R. L., Aschner, J. L., & Hartert, T. V. (2015). Understanding respiratory outcomes in prematurity and bronchopulmonary dysplasia. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 192(2), 134–141. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201412-2142PP
Sarafidis, K., Chotas, W., Agakidou, E., & Karagianni, P. (2021). Intertemporal role of respiratory support in improving neonatal outcomes. Children, 8(10), 883. https://doi.org/10.3390/children8100883
Shetty, S., & Greenough, A. (2014). Neonatal ventilation strategies and long-term respiratory outcomes. Early Human Development, 90(12), 781–785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2014.10.011
Isayama, T., Iwami, H., McDonald, S., & Beyene, J. (2016). Noninvasive ventilation strategies and outcomes in preterm infants: A meta-analysis. JAMA, 316(6), 611–624. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.10708
Askie, L. M., Darlow, B. A., Finer, N., Schmidt, B., Stenson, B., Tarnow-Mordi, W., … & NeOProM Collaborative Group. (2018). Association between oxygen saturation targeting and death or disability in extremely preterm infants. JAMA, 319(21), 2190–2201. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.5725
Zhang, H., Jiang, Y., Zhang, X., Su, L., & Yu, Y. (2025). Risk factors for retinopathy of prematurity in BPD infants. Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2025.2497058
Trittmann, J. K., Nelin, L. D., & Klebanoff, M. A. (2013). Bronchopulmonary dysplasia and neurodevelopmental outcome. European Journal of Pediatrics, 172(9), 1173–1180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-013-2016-5
Yazici, A., Buyuktiryaki, M., Simsek, G. K., & Okur, N. (2022). Factors associated with neurodevelopmental impairment in preterm infants with BPD. European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences, 26(4), 1579–1585. https://www.europeanreview.org/article/27157
Lodha, A., Sauve, R., Tang, S., & Bhandari, V. (2014). Supplemental oxygen at discharge is not associated with worse neurodevelopmental outcomes. PLoS ONE, 9(3), e90843. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0090843
Chiang, M. C., Lee, E. P., & Chang, H. P. (2024). Neurodevelopmental outcomes of preterm infants with BPD receiving home oxygen therapy. Biomedicines, 12(7), 1564. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/12/7/1564
Gray, P. H., Burns, Y. R., Mohay, H. A., & O’Callaghan, M. J. (1995). Neurodevelopmental outcome of preterm infants with bronchopulmonary dysplasia. Archives of Disease in Childhood – Fetal and Neonatal Edition, 73(3), F128–F134. https://doi.org/10.1136/fn.73.3.F128
Sorokina, O. Y., & Bolonska, A. V. (2021). Predictors of bronchopulmonary dysplasia development in premature neonates. Wiadomosci Lekarskie, 74(7), 1252–1257. https://doi.org/10.36740/WLek202107125
Kinshella, M. W. L., Walker, C. R., Hiwa, T., et al. (2020). Barriers and facilitators to implementing bubble CPAP in sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review. Public Health Reviews, 41, Article 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40985-020-00124-7
Usman, F., Farouk, Z. L., & Tsiga-Ahmed, F. I. (2023). Improvised bubble CPAP in resource-limited settings: A meta-analysis. Journal of Perinatal Medicine, 51(1), 22–30. https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2022-0009
Ekhaguere, O. A., Okonkwo, I. R., & Batra, M. (2022). Respiratory distress syndrome management in resource-limited settings—Current evidence and opportunities. Frontiers in Pediatrics, 10, 961509. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2022.961509
Wilkes, C., Subhi, R., Graham, H. R., & Duke, T. (2022). Continuous positive airway pressure for pneumonia in LMICs: A contextual review. Journal of Global Health, 12, 10012. https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.12.10012
Fundanga, C. M. (2019). Outcomes of neonates treated with CPAP at the University Teaching Hospital NICU, Lusaka, Zambia. UNZA Theses Repository. http://dspace.unza.zm/handle/123456789/8655
Hedstrom, A. B., Nyonyintono, J., Saxon, E. A., et al. (2023). Feasibility and usability of a very low-cost bubble CPAP device including oxygen blenders in Uganda. PLOS Global Public Health, 3(3), e0001354. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0001354
Subhi, R., McLeod, L., Ayede, A. I., Dedeke, I. O., et al. (2025). Automated oxygen control for preterm infants receiving CPAP in Nigeria: A randomized crossover trial. The Lancet Global Health, 13(7), e1356–e1367. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(24)00458-3
De Luca, D. (2021). Respiratory distress syndrome in preterm neonates in the era of precision medicine. Pediatrics & Neonatology, 62(5), 475–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedneo.2021.03.007
Guo BB, Pang L, Yang B, Zhang C, Chen XY, OuYang JB, et al. Lung Ultrasound for the Diagnosis and Management of Neonatal Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Minireview. Front Pediatr. 2022;10:864911. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2022.864911
Shah, S. T. H., Shah, S. A. H., & Panagiotopoulos, K. (2025). Artificial intelligence and IoT for neurodevelopmental support in preterm neonates. Journal of Multiscale Healthcare AI, 7(1), 134–143. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.14628.30086
Karthika, M., Sreedharan, J. K., & Shevade, M. (2024). Artificial intelligence in respiratory care. Frontiers in Digital Health, 4, Article 1502434. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2024.1502434
McOmber, B. G., Moreira, A. G., Kirkman, K., & Acosta, S. (2024). Predictive analytics in bronchopulmonary dysplasia: Past, present, and future. Frontiers in Pediatrics, 12, Article 1483940. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2024.1483940
Bos, L. D., Onland, W., Miedema, M., & Hutten, J. (2020). Precision medicine in neonates: Future perspectives for the lung. Frontiers in Pediatrics, 8, 586061. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2020.586061
Talebi, H., Dastgheib, S. A., Vafapour, M., & Bahrami, R. (2025). Biomarkers and machine learning for predicting BPD and RDS in preterm infants. Frontiers in Pediatrics, 13, Article 1521668. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2025.1521668
Moreira, A. G., Jha, T., & Northcote, J. (2025). Artificial intelligence in bronchopulmonary dysplasia: A literature review. Information, 16(4), 262. https://doi.org/10.3390/info16040262
Respiratory support in intensive care has undergone a significant transformation over time, evolving from simple manual techniques to sophisticated, intelligent devices. The initial use of negative pressure ventilation devices such as the “iron lung” in the early 20th century marked the beginning of this journey. A major turning point occurred during the poliomyelitis outbreak in Copenhagen in 1952, when positive pressure ventilation was successfully employed, laying the foundation for modern intensive care practices.
From the 1960s onward, volume- and pressure-controlled mechanical ventilators were developed, offering greater control over respiratory support. The introduction of microprocessor-based ventilators in the 1980s enhanced the precision and safety of mechanical ventilation. By the 2000s, lung-protective strategies—such as the use of low tidal volumes and appropriate levels of PEEP—had become widely adopted.
Over time, non-invasive ventilation techniques (such as BiPAP and CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygen therapy have also become increasingly prevalent. The COVID-19 pandemic further underscored the critical role of ventilators in the management of acute respiratory failure. Today, respiratory support is delivered via advanced technologies that incorporate artificial intelligence, allow for individualized settings, and prioritize lung-protective strategies.
Respiratory Support in Intensive Care
Respiratory support in intensive care refers to the set of invasive and non-invasive methods employed to ensure adequate oxygenation and carbon dioxide elimination in patients experiencing respiratory failure. It is indicated in cases where the patient is unable to maintain sufficient spontaneous breathing or when it is necessary to reduce the work of breathing. The primary objectives of respiratory support are to optimize gas exchange, protect the lungs, and sustain life until the underlying condition improves.
Types of Respiratory Support
Respiratory support is broadly classified into two main categories:
1. Non-invasive respiratory support: This form of support is delivered through a face mask or nasal cannula without the need for endotracheal intubation. Common methods include high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy and non-invasive mechanical ventilation (e.g., BiPAP or CPAP).
2. Invasive respiratory support: This approach requires the placement of an endotracheal tube into the trachea. It involves mechanical ventilation or, in more advanced cases, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), particularly in severe or refractory respiratory failure.
Indications for Respiratory Support
Respiratory support is indicated in the following conditions:
Hypoxemic respiratory failure (PaO₂ < 60 mmHg): such as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), pneumonia, and COVID-19.
Hypercapnic respiratory failure (PaCO₂ > 45 mmHg): including exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and neuromuscular diseases.
Cardiogenic pulmonary edema
Postoperative respiratory depression
Trauma, sepsis, and metabolic disorders
What Is a Mechanical Ventilator?
A mechanical ventilator is a medical device that delivers air to the lungs using positive pressure to support or completely take over the breathing process in patients with respiratory failure. It is used in intensive care units, operating rooms, and emergency departments to temporarily maintain respiratory function in critically ill patients. Mechanical ventilation mimics natural breathing by meeting the body’s oxygen demands, regulating carbon dioxide removal, and allowing the respiratory muscles to rest.
Primary Objectives of Mechanical Ventilation
To correct hypoxemia (increase oxygen levels)
To reduce hypercapnia (eliminate excess carbon dioxide)
To decrease the work of breathing
To prevent complications through lung-protective ventilation strategies
To support spontaneous breathing and prepare the patient for weaning from the ventilator
How Is Mechanical Ventilation Used?
1) Preparation and Patient Selection
Mechanical ventilation is typically initiated in the following conditions:
Acute respiratory failure
Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)
Exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
Systemic conditions such as sepsis, trauma, or brain injury
Postoperative respiratory depression
The patient is intubated by inserting an endotracheal tube into the trachea, which is then connected to the mechanical ventilator.
2) Mode Selection
The mechanical ventilator can be set to operate in various modes:
Controlled Mode (AC – Assist/Control): The device initiates and controls every breath; the patient does not contribute to ventilation.
Supported Mode (SIMV – Synchronized Intermittent Mandatory Ventilation): The patient can breathe spontaneously between mandatory breaths; the ventilator provides support as needed.
Pressure Support Ventilation (PSV): The ventilator delivers pressure support with each spontaneous breath initiated by the patient.
During mechanical ventilation, the following parameters are closely observed:
SpO₂ (oxygen saturation)
End-tidal CO₂ (etCO₂)
Tidal volume and minute ventilation
Respiratory mechanics (compliance, resistance)
Alarm systems (e.g., high pressure, low volume, disconnection)
4) Complications and Precautions
Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury (VILI): To prevent volutrauma, barotrauma, and atelectasis, low tidal volumes and appropriate positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) settings should be employed.
Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia (VAP): Preventive measures such as meticulous oral care and maintaining the head of the bed at a 30–45° elevation are essential.
Hemodynamic Effects: High levels of positive pressure can reduce venous return and consequently affect cardiac output.
Diaphragm Atrophy: Prolonged use of full-support ventilation modes may lead to respiratory muscle weakness due to disuse atrophy.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is mechanical ventilation the same as oxygen therapy? No. Oxygen therapy is typically administered via simple face masks or nasal cannulas. Mechanical ventilation, on the other hand, provides assisted breathing using positive pressure in patients with impaired lung function; it represents a more advanced form of respiratory support.
Does mechanical ventilation always require intubation? No. Non-invasive mechanical ventilation (e.g., BiPAP, CPAP) can be delivered through masks without the need for intubation. However, invasive mechanical ventilation usually requires endotracheal intubation.
Is dependence on a mechanical ventilator permanent? No. Mechanical ventilation is intended as a temporary support. Once the patient’s respiratory muscles regain strength and gas exchange normalizes, a weaning process is initiated to gradually discontinue ventilator support.
Is mechanical ventilation painful? No, the process of mechanical ventilation itself is not painful. However, the presence of an endotracheal tube and the experience of being on the device can cause discomfort. Therefore, patients are often administered sedation and, when necessary, muscle relaxants.
Gastrointestinal (GI) disorders represent a significant global health burden, contributing to millions of outpatient visits, hospitalizations, and premature deaths annually. The Global Burden of Disease Study (1) reported that digestive diseases were responsible for over 8 million deaths worldwide in 2020, with colorectal cancer ranking among the top three causes of cancer mortality.
Furthermore, chronic inflammatory conditions like inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) affect more than 10 million people globally, showing a rising incidence in newly industrialized countries (2). Other major GI disorders, such as peptic ulcers, celiac disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), small bowel tumors, and obscure gastrointestinal bleeding, necessitate timely and accurate diagnostics to reduce morbidity and prevent life-threatening complications (3, 4).
In this context, early detection and precise localization of GI pathology are critical for guiding therapy and improving patient outcomes. Conventional endoscopy, particularly esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy, has long been the diagnostic mainstay. These techniques facilitate direct mucosal visualization, biopsy acquisition, and a range of therapeutic interventions, including polypectomy, variceal banding, and hemostasis (5).
Despite their proven effectiveness, conventional methods are invasive, require sedation, and can be associated with patient discomfort, adverse events, and limited accessibility, particularly in under-resourced or rural settings (6, 7). These challenges frequently reduce adherence to recommended screenings, especially among elderly and pediatric patient populations.
To address these limitations, capsule endoscopy (CE) was introduced in the early 2000s as a minimally invasive diagnostic tool primarily for small bowel evaluation (8). This capsule, roughly the size of a large vitamin pill, contains a miniature camera, a light source, a battery, and a wireless transmitter. This sophisticated design allows it to capture up to 100,000 images as it naturally passes through the digestive tract (9).
Initially used to investigate obscure GI bleeding, CE’s indications have expanded to include Crohn’s disease, celiac disease, small bowel neoplasms, and more (10, 11). Unlike traditional endoscopy, CE requires no sedation or hospital admission, making it an ideal modality for ambulatory, pediatric, and fragile patient populations (12).
However, it lacks the ability to perform biopsies, deliver therapies, or be actively steered, and it carries risks such as capsule retention, particularly in patients with strictures (13).
In recent years, technological innovations have significantly expanded the capabilities of both conventional and capsule endoscopy. CE has evolved through the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) for image interpretation, magnetically guided navigation, self-propulsion mechanisms, and tactile sensors.
These advancements have transformed CE from a passive camera into a semi-intelligent diagnostic system (14-16). Concurrently, conventional endoscopic platforms now incorporate high-definition video, narrow-band imaging (NBI), confocal laser endomicroscopy, and augmented guidance systems, which collectively improve diagnostic accuracy and procedural safety (17).
These parallel developments—one driving towards non-invasive smart diagnostics and the other towards advanced therapeutic precision—necessitate a structured comparison. As healthcare transitions toward patient-centered and precision-based approaches, clinicians must carefully weigh factors such as diagnostic yield, patient comfort, cost-effectiveness, and accessibility when selecting between these modalities.
This review presents a comprehensive comparative analysis of capsule and conventional endoscopy technologies, evaluating their mechanisms, clinical applications, limitations, and future trajectories. Special attention is given to their distinct roles in small bowel bleeding, colorectal cancer screening, IBD diagnosis, and upper GI evaluation, all within the evolving context of digital gastroenterology.
Conventional Endoscopy – History, Modalities, Clinical Roles, and Limitations
Conventional endoscopy remains the cornerstone of modern gastrointestinal (GI) diagnostics and therapeutics, offering unparalleled access for direct visualization, targeted tissue sampling, and real-time intervention. Its development over the past century parallels some of the most transformative advancements in internal medicine.
This section outlines the historical evolution, procedural taxonomy, technical innovations, clinical utility, and inherent procedural risks, with particular attention to geriatric vulnerability and sedation-related concerns.
Historical Development and Scope
The evolution of GI endoscopy began with rigid esophagoscopes in the early 20th century, progressing rapidly after the introduction of fiberoptic technology in the 1950s. The invention of the video endoscope in the 1980s marked a critical inflection point, enabling real-time imaging, comprehensive documentation, and post-procedure analysis (18). These developments not only revolutionized mucosal visualization but also significantly expanded indications from mere diagnosis to minimally invasive interventions.
Over time, the scope of conventional endoscopy broadened to include several advanced submodalities, each targeting specific anatomical or pathological niches. These now form an integrated procedural spectrum vital to various medical specialties, including gastroenterology, hepatology, oncology, cardiology, and pancreatobiliary medicine.
Taxonomy of Conventional Endoscopic Modalities
Table 1: Conventional Endoscopic Modalities
Procedure
Target Area
Primary Applications
EGD
Esophagus, stomach, duodenum
Ulcers, varices, dysphagia, malignancy
Colonoscopy
Entire colon, terminal ileum
Cancer screening, IBD, bleeding
ERCP
Biliary and pancreatic ducts
Obstruction, stones, strictures
EUS
GI wall, pancreas, lymph nodes
Tumor staging, FNA, cyst drainage
TNE
Nasal approach to proximal upper GI
Tolerated diagnostics in frail patients
TEE
Posterior heart via esophagus
Valve disease, atrial thrombus, endocarditis
DBE/Push Enteroscopy
Mid–small bowel
Obscure bleeding, biopsy, therapy
Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD)
EGD is a first-line diagnostic and therapeutic procedure for evaluating upper GI symptoms such as dyspepsia, upper GI bleeding, and dysphagia. It facilitates biopsy of suspicious lesions, treatment of bleeding ulcers or varices, foreign body retrieval, and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement. Biopsies are also routinely performed for conditions like gastritis, Barrett’s esophagus, and Helicobacter pylori infection (5).
Colonoscopy
As the primary tool for colorectal cancer screening, colonoscopy allows for real-time detection and removal of polyps, assessment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and stricture dilation. It remains the sole modality validated for both diagnosis and definitive therapy in colon-based pathology (6).
ERCP utilizes a side-viewing duodenoscope combined with fluoroscopy to visualize and treat biliary or pancreatic ductal disorders, including choledocholithiasis, strictures, and bile leaks. While magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) has largely superseded diagnostic ERCP, therapeutic ERCP remains essential for stone removal, sphincterotomy, and stent placement (5).
Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)
EUS combines high-frequency ultrasound with endoscopy, enabling submucosal and extramural evaluation of GI and hepatopancreatic structures. It is particularly valuable for tumor staging, lymph node biopsy, and pancreatic cyst characterization. EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) facilitates cytological diagnosis of malignancy with minimal invasiveness (19).
Transnasal Endoscopy (TNE)
TNE offers unsedated access to the upper GI tract via a narrower transnasal scope. Although image quality and suction capacity are comparatively lower, it is ideal for elderly or anticoagulated patients where sedation poses an increased risk (7).
Transesophageal Echocardiography (TEE)
Though primarily a cardiology procedure, TEE involves endoscopic ultrasound via the esophagus to visualize posterior cardiac anatomy—especially the atria, valves, and aortic arch—with high resolution. It is critical in the diagnosis of infective endocarditis, atrial thrombi, and valvular disorders (19).
Deep Enteroscopy (Push or Balloon-Assisted)
These methods extend diagnostic and therapeutic reach into the jejunum and ileum, regions largely inaccessible by conventional EGD or colonoscopy. While more invasive than capsule endoscopy, they enable biopsy and therapy, making them indispensable in select cases of obscure GI bleeding (10).
This section effectively details the aspects of conventional endoscopy, especially its limitations. It’s well-organized and presents a clear argument for the need for complementary tools.
Here’s a revised version, focusing on grammar, clarity, conciseness, and overall scientific tone, with explanations for the changes:
Anesthesia and Risk in Geriatric Patients
Conventional endoscopic procedures typically employ conscious sedation (e.g., midazolam, fentanyl) or monitored anesthesia care (MAC). For advanced procedures like ERCP or TEE, or in patients with low pain tolerance, deep sedation or general anesthesia may be necessary.
However, sedation-related complications are significantly more frequent in geriatric populations. The aging process affects drug metabolism, and comorbidities such as cardiac insufficiency, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), or cognitive impairment inherently increase procedural risk. For instance, Mahmud et al. (2021) reported that patients over 75 years experienced a 3.6-fold increase in sedation-related adverse events, including hypoxia, bradycardia, and delayed recovery (20).
Therefore, appropriate risk stratification is vital. In frail elderly patients, especially those undergoing screening rather than urgent intervention, capsule endoscopy may offer a lower-risk alternative (7, 12).
Clinical Applications: Diagnostic and Therapeutic Excellence
Conventional endoscopy offers both diagnostic precision and therapeutic versatility unmatched by non-invasive imaging.
Common Indications:
GI bleeding (variceal or non-variceal)
Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) surveillance
Barrett’s esophagus screening
Colorectal cancer prevention
Evaluation of dysphagia, dyspepsia, and chronic diarrhea
Biliary/pancreatic duct evaluation (ERCP)
Tumor staging (EUS)
Therapeutic Functions:
Polypectomy and mucosal resection
Clip or thermal coagulation for bleeding
Stent placement in obstructive lesions
Dilation of benign strictures
Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and cyst drainage
Limitations of Conventional Endoscopy
Despite its critical diagnostic and therapeutic utility, conventional endoscopy has notable limitations. One of the foremost challenges is its invasive nature, often necessitating intravenous sedation or general anesthesia. This carries an increased risk of cardiopulmonary complications, particularly among older adults and patients with multiple comorbidities (20). Sedation also requires post-procedure monitoring, extended recovery time, and substantial resource allocation.
Another significant constraint is limited access to the mid-small intestine, a region beyond the reach of both EGD and colonoscopy. This creates a diagnostic “blind spot” in evaluating conditions such as obscure gastrointestinal bleeding, mid-jejunal tumors, and isolated Crohn’s disease of the small bowel (10). While techniques like double-balloon enteroscopy can address this gap, they are technically demanding, time-consuming, and not widely available.
Psychological factors also contribute to reduced patient compliance, particularly in colorectal cancer screening. Fear of discomfort, anxiety about sedation, and embarrassment regarding the procedure can deter participation, especially among younger, asymptomatic individuals or those from culturally conservative backgrounds (6).
Additionally, conventional endoscopy is operator-dependent, with diagnostic yield and safety closely tied to the endoscopist’s skill, experience, and equipment quality. This variability can lead to missed lesions, particularly subtle or flat neoplasms.
While complication rates are relatively low, colonoscopy carries a 0.1–0.3% risk of perforation, and post-polypectomy bleeding remains a concern. For EGD, serious complications are rare but include aspiration, bleeding, and cardiac arrhythmias, especially in high-risk patients (7).
Finally, healthcare infrastructure disparities further limit access in low- and middle-income countries or rural regions, where trained personnel, high-end imaging platforms, and reprocessing systems may be lacking (2). These systemic limitations highlight the need for less invasive, scalable diagnostic alternatives, such as capsule endoscopy, in selected clinical settings.
Limitations of Conventional Endoscopy
Despite its strengths, conventional endoscopy has key limitations:
Invasiveness and sedation risks, particularly in older or comorbid patients.
Incomplete access to the mid-small bowel (a gap between EGD and colonoscopy).
Psychological barriers to screening (e.g., fear, anxiety, embarrassment).
Dependency on highly trained operators, leading to potential variability in diagnostic yield.
Procedure-related complications (e.g., perforation rate: ~0.1–0.3% for colonoscopy; rare for EGD but include aspiration, bleeding, and cardiac arrhythmias).
Limited accessibility in low-resource settings or rural hospitals (2).
Table 2: Comparison of Capsule Endoscopy vs. Conventional Endoscopy
Feature
Capsule Endoscopy (CE)
Conventional Endoscopy (C-EGD, Colonoscopy, etc.)
Invasiveness
Non-invasive (swallowed capsule)
Invasive (scope insertion via mouth or rectum)
Anesthesia/Sedation
Not required
Often required (IV sedation or MAC)
Diagnostic Reach
Small intestine, colon (with specific capsules), esophagus (via magnet guidance)
Upper GI (EGD), colon, duodenum; limited small bowel access
Therapeutic Capability
None (diagnostic only)
Full therapeutic tools (biopsy, polypectomy, dilation, stenting)
Visualization Quality
High-res images (frame-by-frame)
Real-time, dynamic high-res video with control
Procedure Control
Passive (natural peristalsis)
Active operator-controlled navigation
Risk Profile
Capsule retention (1–2%); incomplete transit
Sedation risks, perforation (0.1–0.3%), bleeding
Patient Comfort
Very high; no discomfort or prep (except for bowel cleansing)
Variable; discomfort, gas, sedation recovery time
Clinical Indications
Obscure GI bleeding, Crohn’s disease, celiac disease, small bowel tumors, pediatric/frail patients
Bleeding, ulcers, IBD, cancer screening, strictures, polyp management
Accessibility
Portable; outpatient-friendly; suitable for rural/limited settings
Requires extensive video analysis (30–60 min per case)
Real-time assessment and decision-making
Cost & Resource Use
Lower setup cost; higher interpretive time
Higher procedural cost but immediate intervention
Capsule Endoscopy – Technology, Workflow, Modalities, and Limitations
Capsule endoscopy (CE) represents one of the most significant innovations in gastrointestinal diagnostics over the last two decades. First introduced by Iddan et al. in 2000, this minimally invasive technique has enabled clinicians to visualize regions of the gastrointestinal tract that were historically difficult to access, particularly the small intestine (8).
Its development was primarily driven by the need to evaluate obscure gastrointestinal bleeding and small bowel diseases in patients for whom conventional endoscopy provided insufficient visualization or posed undue procedural risk.
Technological Design and Components
The capsule endoscope is a self-contained, swallowable device typically measuring approximately 11×26 mm and weighing under 5 grams. It incorporates a miniature complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) camera, a set of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) for illumination, a wireless transmitter, an antenna, and a battery capable of continuous function for 8–12 hours (9). Modern designs may include:
Dual-lens systems for bi-directional viewing.
Adaptive frame rate to conserve battery life.
Onboard data storage or real-time transmission to external recorders.
Position-tracking and motion sensors for orientation.
These components enable CE to acquire 50,000–100,000 images per procedure, which are then transmitted to a data recorder worn externally by the patient. After capsule excretion (typically within 24–48 hours), the stored video is downloaded and reviewed by a trained physician using specialized software.
Workflow and Procedural Steps of Capsule Endoscopy
The CE process follows a standardized workflow:
Pre-procedure preparation involves overnight fasting and, in some cases, bowel preparation using polyethylene glycol. This step is particularly important for colon capsule endoscopy.
Capsule ingestion occurs in a clinical setting. No sedation is required, making CE highly suitable for elderly, pediatric, or medically fragile patients.
Transit and image acquisition rely entirely on natural peristalsis. The capsule traverses the GI tract passively, capturing images of the mucosa.
Data retrieval and interpretation happen post-procedure. The data recorder is returned, and the physician reviews the footage, often utilizing AI-assisted software to highlight potential abnormalities (21).
This approach facilitates remote, ambulatory diagnostics while avoiding the risks associated with sedation and scope insertion.
Types and Clinical Applications of Capsule Endoscopy
CE is available in several clinically specialized variants, each designed for specific anatomical regions and diagnostic purposes.
Small Bowel Capsule Endoscopy (SBCE)
SBCE remains the most established and widely used CE platform. It is particularly valuable for evaluating:
Obscure gastrointestinal bleeding
Crohn’s disease
Small bowel tumors
Celiac disease
Iron-deficiency anemia
Studies report a diagnostic yield between 38% and 83%, with variations depending on the indication, preparation quality, and clinical setting (11).
Colon Capsule Endoscopy (CCE)
Colon capsules are larger, feature dual cameras, and possess wider visual fields. They are primarily used in:
Colorectal cancer screening, particularly for patients who decline or cannot tolerate conventional colonoscopy.
Cases of incomplete colonoscopies due to anatomical or procedural limitations.
Meta-analyses report 75–90% sensitivity for polyps ≥6 mm, with higher accuracy achieved in well-prepped colons (22).
Esophageal Capsule Endoscopy (ECE)
ECE enables rapid, high-resolution imaging of the esophagus and is primarily used to screen or monitor:
Barrett’s esophagus
Esophageal varices
Reflux esophagitis
ECE can be paired with magnetically guided navigation systems to overcome the limitations of passive motion and enhance targeted visualization (14).
Technological Innovations
Ongoing developments are transforming CE into a more dynamic and intelligent platform, including:
Magnetically guided capsule endoscopy: This technology uses external magnetic fields to control capsule position, enabling targeted examination of the stomach and esophagus (14).
Self-propelling robotic capsules: These capsules employ piezoelectric motors, shape memory alloys, or vibratory propulsion for enhanced mobility and prolonged gastric visualization (15).
Artificial Intelligence (AI): Algorithms powered by deep learning now assist in detecting ulcers, polyps, angioectasias, and inflammatory lesions, significantly reducing review time and increasing diagnostic yield (16).
Smart sensors: Newer prototypes include tactile and biosensor arrays capable of measuring pH, temperature, pressure, and various chemical signatures (17).
These enhancements aim to eventually allow for biopsy acquisition, therapeutic delivery, and real-time manipulation, thereby extending CE’s capabilities far beyond its current diagnostic-only paradigm.
Limitations and Challenges of Capsule Endoscopy
While capsule endoscopy (CE) offers numerous advantages in patient comfort, accessibility, and non-invasiveness, it remains fundamentally limited by its diagnostic-only nature, inherent technological constraints, and associated procedural risks. Recognizing these limitations is critical for determining its appropriate clinical application and when considering it as an alternative or adjunct to conventional endoscopy.
Lack of Therapeutic Capability
The most significant constraint of CE is its inability to perform real-time therapeutic interventions. Unlike conventional endoscopes, capsule platforms are currently incapable of:
Performing biopsies for histopathological diagnosis.
Executing hemostasis in gastrointestinal bleeding.
Removing polyps or foreign bodies.
Delivering localized drug therapy or placing stents.
Consequently, capsule endoscopy often functions as a first-line screening or visualization tool. Positive findings frequently necessitate follow-up conventional endoscopy for definitive treatment or confirmation (11).
Capsule Retention
Capsule retention, defined as the capsule remaining in the GI tract for over two weeks or failing to exit naturally, occurs in approximately 1–2% of cases. However, rates can significantly increase in patients with:
Known or suspected Crohn’s disease.
NSAID-induced strictures.
Small bowel tumors or adhesions.
Retention may lead to bowel obstruction and, in rare instances, requires surgical retrieval. The use of a patency capsule (biodegradable or dissolvable) is often recommended before CE in high-risk patients (13).
Incomplete Examination and Transit Failure
Successful capsule endoscopy depends on the capsule completing its transit through the area of interest—typically the entire small bowel—within its battery life. However, failure to reach the colon before battery depletion may result in incomplete studies, particularly in:
Patients with gastroparesis.
Those with delayed small bowel transit.
Cases where intestinal motility is impaired.
Incomplete visualization can compromise diagnostic yield, leading to false negatives or indeterminate studies that require repetition (11).
Limited Image Control and Field of View
Unlike conventional endoscopy, where the endoscopist can:
Steer and orient the scope.
Irrigate, aspirate, and insufflate.
Manipulate mucosal folds.
Capsule endoscopy is a passive modality, entirely dependent on natural peristalsis and gravity for movement and positioning. This can result in:
Missed lesions due to rapid transit.
Poor visualization from retained debris.
Difficulty precisely localizing pathology.
Although magnetically guided systems improve control in the esophagus and stomach, this technology is not yet universally available or standardized (14).
Interpretive Time and Reader Variability
A single capsule study generates up to 100,000 images, requiring:
30–60 minutes of detailed video review by a trained reader.
Significant reader fatigue and inter-observer variability, particularly for subtle findings like angioectasias or mucosal breaks.
Recent developments in AI-assisted image triage have reduced this burden, but a final diagnosis still requires human validation (21).
Cost, Access, and Reimbursement
While CE avoids the infrastructure and sedation-related costs of traditional endoscopy, it presents other financial barriers:
High device cost (capsule plus recording system).
Software licensing and data storage expenses.
Lack of universal insurance coverage in many countries.
Limited availability in rural or low-resource regions.
These issues can limit its adoption, especially outside tertiary care centers or in healthcare systems with fee-for-service reimbursement models.
Table 4. Summary of Key Limitations
Category
Limitation
Implication
Clinical
No therapeutic capability
Requires follow-up endoscopy
Safety
Capsule retention (1–2%)
Risk of obstruction; potential surgical retrieval
Diagnostic
Incomplete transit, poor localization
False negatives; missed pathology
Technical
No active steering or suction
Passive image capture limits precision
Logistical
Prolonged review time
Reader fatigue; interpretive variability
Economic
High capsule cost; limited reimbursement
Barriers to widespread adoption
Capsule endoscopy represents a major advance in GI diagnostics, particularly for small bowel pathology, non-invasive screening, and its utility in vulnerable patient populations. It provides a safe, comfortable, and effective method for internal visualization without the need for sedation or operator-dependent discomfort.
However, current limitations—including the absence of therapeutic functionality, the risk of capsule retention, and incomplete transit—restrict its universal application as a primary diagnostic modality. Thus, CE is best viewed as a complementary strategy that extends the reach of endoscopy into areas previously inaccessible or unsafe for conventional tools.
Table 4: Clinical Applications – Capsule vs Conventional Endoscopy
⚠️ Possible with esophageal capsule + magnetic guidance
✅ EGD with biopsy is standard
Esophageal varices
⚠️ Detected by ECE in cirrhotics
✅ EGD allows surveillance and banding
Polyp removal
❌ Not possible
✅ Colonoscopy enables resection
GI bleeding (active)
❌ Cannot intervene
✅ EGD or colonoscopy allows immediate therapy
Pancreatobiliary evaluation
❌ Not accessible
✅ ERCP/EUS required for ducts, stones, strictures
Tumor staging
❌ Not accurate
✅ EUS and biopsy essential
Stricture evaluation
⚠️ Risk of capsule retention
✅ Dilatation and biopsy via endoscope
Pediatric & frail patients
✅ Ideal for non-invasive imaging
⚠️ Sedation risk; limited tolerance
Future Directions and Innovations in Endoscopic Technology
Over the past two decades, gastrointestinal endoscopy has transitioned from a purely diagnostic tool to a technologically dynamic and increasingly patient-centered field. While conventional endoscopy continues to evolve with enhanced imaging and therapeutic capabilities, capsule endoscopy (CE) is on a parallel trajectory, increasingly bridging its diagnostic limitations through integration with robotics, artificial intelligence (AI), and sensor technology.
These developments suggest a future where the boundary between diagnostic and interventional platforms may become increasingly blurred, with profound implications for patient care, access, and global screening strategies.
AI-Assisted Image Interpretation
Artificial intelligence, particularly deep learning, is playing an increasingly central role in both conventional and capsule endoscopy. Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have demonstrated accuracy rates approaching or even exceeding those of expert endoscopists for detecting various gastrointestinal lesions, including:
Colonic polyps
Ulcers and erosions
Angioectasias
Bleeding stigmata
In capsule endoscopy, AI-based systems now enable automated frame triage, prioritizing frames with suspected pathology. This can reduce review time from 30–60 minutes to under 10 minutes in some cases (21). For conventional endoscopy, real-time AI overlays can assist during live procedures by alerting endoscopists to missed lesions or guiding biopsy targeting (23).
These capabilities not only improve diagnostic efficiency but also enhance standardization, thereby reducing inter-observer variability—a critical goal in population-level screening programs.
Robotic and Magnetically Controlled Capsules
One of the key limitations of CE—the lack of control over navigation—is being actively addressed through magnetically guided systems and self-propelled capsules. Magnet-controlled capsule endoscopy (MCE), already in clinical use for gastric and esophageal evaluation, utilizes an external magnetic field to orient and steer the capsule with sub-centimeter precision (14). These advanced systems enable:
Extended imaging in the stomach, which typically lacks peristalsis-driven transit.
Targeted positioning for suspected lesions.
Potential for real-time video guidance instead of passive imaging.
Additionally, research into self-propelling capsules employs mechanisms such as:
Vibratory motors
Shape-memory alloys
Electromagnetic or fluidic actuation
These innovative devices promise controlled locomotion, retrograde movement, and the ability to “hover” in areas of interest, enabling future platforms to pause, re-image, or even biopsy specific lesions (15).
This is an excellent final section, effectively summarizing the exciting future of endoscopy and addressing important considerations. You’ve brought together all the threads of your research beautifully.
Here’s a revised version, with explanations for the changes, to enhance grammar, clarity, conciseness, and overall scientific tone:
Toward Therapeutic Capsule Endoscopy
Though still in prototype stages, the development of interventional capsule platforms is gaining significant momentum. These advancements include:
Biopsy-enabled capsules featuring micro-serrated cutting arms or spring-loaded needles.
Drug-delivery capsules capable of releasing medication at specific pH zones or based on chemical sensors.
Cautery-enabled microtools for treating angiodysplasia.
Tissue sampling via microneedles, guided by onboard AI or a remote operator interface.
Such advancements could position capsule endoscopy not just as a diagnostic tool, but as an autonomous or teleoperated intervention system, particularly in settings with limited access to conventional endoscopy.
Multi-sensor and Smart Diagnostic Capsules
Beyond visual imaging, future CE platforms are integrating biosensors capable of measuring:
pH
Temperature
Pressure
Glucose, lactate, or other metabolites
Microbiome and gut enzyme activity
These capabilities could expand CE’s role into functional GI diagnostics, such as evaluating gastroparesis, intestinal transit disorders, and even mucosal immune responses (17). When combined with AI-driven analysis, CE could provide not just anatomical, but also physiological and biochemical information, paving the way for multi-dimensional diagnostics.
Remote, Wireless, and Decentralized Screening
One of CE’s greatest untapped potentials lies in its ability to decentralize endoscopy—shifting diagnostics from hospitals to homes, rural clinics, or mobile care units. This trend is particularly significant in the context of:
As wireless transmission improves and cloud-based review systems mature, capsule endoscopy may integrate into tele-endoscopy frameworks, enabling image upload, AI triage, and remote physician oversight. This could potentially close access gaps in low-resource regions.
Ethical and Regulatory Considerations
As capsule systems become more autonomous and AI-driven, new regulatory challenges are emerging. Key issues include:
Data privacy and cybersecurity of wireless transmissions.
Ethical concerns surrounding overdiagnosis, incidental findings, and patient consent for algorithm-based decisions.
It is essential that innovation is accompanied by robust governance frameworks, ongoing validation trials, and integration into established clinical guidelines to ensure both safety and effectiveness.
The future of endoscopy is increasingly hybrid, intelligent, and decentralized. Capsule endoscopy is evolving beyond static imaging into an ecosystem of smart, responsive, and potentially interventional devices, augmented by robotic locomotion, biosensing, and artificial intelligence.
Concurrently, conventional endoscopy is incorporating real-time diagnostic augmentation and robotic tools for enhanced therapeutic precision. Together, these convergent paths point toward an era of adaptive, patient-personalized, and data-rich gastrointestinal care—one that may soon redefine the meaning of endoscopy itself.
Table 5. Technological Innovations and AI Applications in Endoscopic Platforms
Innovation Area
Capsule Endoscopy (CE)
Conventional Endoscopy (C-EGD, Colonoscopy)
Clinical Value
Artificial Intelligence (AI)
✅ Deep learning for image triage, bleeding/polyp detection (e.g., CNNs)
✅ Real-time AI overlay for polyp detection and characterization
🚧 Prototypes in development (e.g., microneedles, biopsy arms)
✅ Fully established functionality
May bring CE closer to therapeutic parity
Edge Computing / Onboard AI
✅ AI processing inside capsule (e.g., lesion scoring, compression)
🚧 Under development for scope-assisted cloud AI
Improves latency, enables offline diagnosis, field deployability
Biosensor Integration
✅ pH, pressure, temperature, chemical and microbiome sensors in prototypes
❌ Rarely used; some pH monitoring exists (e.g., Bravo capsule)
Expands diagnostic capability to functional and biochemical GI disorders
3D Mucosal Reconstruction
🚧 Capsule-based stereo imaging under investigation
✅ Enhanced scopes with NBI, chromoendoscopy, 3D imaging
Improves precision of lesion characterization and localization
Remote Diagnostics / Telemedicine
✅ Cloud upload and asynchronous AI review possible
✅ Possible with connected hospital platforms
Enables decentralized diagnostics in remote/rural areas
References
GBD 2020 Gastrointestinal Disease Collaborators. (2021). The global burden of gastrointestinal disorders. The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 6(3), 162–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-1253(20)30245-3
Kaplan, G. G., & Windsor, J. W. (2021). The global emergence of inflammatory bowel disease: The evolution of epidemiology. Gastroenterology, 160(1), 39–51.e2. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2020.06.063
Sung, J. J., Kuipers, E. J., & El-Serag, H. B. (2009). Systematic review: The global incidence and prevalence of peptic ulcer disease. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 29(9), 938–946. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2009.03960.x
Mangipudi, U. K., Dhooria, B., Acharya, R., & Reddy, S. (2025). Endless bleeding: Elusive diagnosis via capsule imaging. Digestive Diseases and Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-025-09041-8
Cotton, P. B., & Williams, C. B. (2020). Practical gastrointestinal endoscopy: The fundamentals (7th ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
Rex, D. K., & Imperiale, T. F. (2023). Patient experience in colonoscopy: Results of a national survey. American Journal of Gastroenterology, 118(4), 678–685. https://doi.org/10.14309/ajg.0000000000002183
Leung, W. K., & Chan, F. K. (2020). Endoscopy in the elderly: Balancing benefit and risk. Best Practice & Research Clinical Gastroenterology, 44-45, 101692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpg.2020.101692
Iddan, G., Meron, G., Glukhovsky, A., & Swain, P. (2000). Wireless capsule endoscopy. Nature, 405(6785), 417. https://doi.org/10.1038/35013021
Pennazio, M., Rondonotti, E., & de Franchis, R. (2008). Capsule endoscopy in neoplastic lesions of the small bowel. World Journal of Gastroenterology, 14(33), 5245–5253. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.14.5245
Ejtehadi, F., Dadashpour, N., & Bordbar, M. (2025). Diagnostic yield of capsule vs balloon enteroscopy in small bowel disorders. SN Comprehensive Clinical Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42399-025-01889-1
Sidhu, R., Sanders, D. S., & McAlindon, M. E. (2012). The role of video capsule endoscopy in celiac disease. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinics of North America, 22(4), 869–880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giec.2012.07.007
Barkin, J. S., & Friedman, S. (2002). Wireless capsule endoscopy: Patient acceptance and safety. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 56(4), 621–624. https://doi.org/10.1067/mge.2002.128967
Cave, D., Legnani, P., de Franchis, R., & Lewis, B. S. (2005). ICCE consensus for capsule retention. Endoscopy, 37(10), 1065–1067. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2005-870071
Shiha, M., Finta, A., & Madácsy, L. (2025). Magnet-controlled capsule endoscopy versus esophagogastroduodenoscopy: Diagnostic accuracy for upper GI lesions. Gut, 74(Suppl 1), A8.2.
Yan, Y., Wang, Z., Tian, J., & Guo, R. (2025). Self-propelled capsule robot dynamics in the small intestine. Journal of Applied Mechanics, 92(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4063694
Krumb, H. J., & Mukhopadhyay, A. (2025). eNCApsulate: A neural cellular automata model for precision diagnosis on capsule endoscopy platforms. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.21562
Feldman, M., Friedman, L. S., & Brandt, L. J. (2010). Sleisenger and Fordtran’s gastrointestinal and liver disease (9th ed.). Saunders.
Hahn, R. T., & Abraham, T. (2014). Transesophageal echocardiography in clinical practice. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 63(19), 1951–1964. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2014.02.540
Mahmud, N., Cohen, J., Tsourides, K., & Berzin, T. M. (2021). Risk of sedation-related complications in older adults undergoing GI endoscopy. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 19(7), 1357–1365.e2.
da Costa, A. M. M. P., Saraiva, M. M., Cardoso, P., et al. (2025). AI-driven capsule endoscopy in IBD. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2025.03.006
Spada, C., Pasha, S. F., Gross, S. A., et al. (2021). Accuracy of capsule colonoscopy in polyp detection: A meta-analysis. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 93(5), 1105–1114.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2020.08.045
Urban, G., Tripathi, P., Alkayali, T., et al. (2018). Deep learning localizes and identifies polyps in real time with 96% accuracy in screening colonoscopy. Gastroenterology, 155(4), 1069–1078.e8. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2018.06.037
Neonatal respiratory failure remains a primary cause of admission to neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) worldwide. Premature birth, affecting an estimated 15 million neonates annually globally, is strongly correlated with pulmonary immaturity and an elevated risk of respiratory complications (1). In such cases, respiratory support is frequently indispensable for reducing morbidity and improving survival outcomes.
Common causes of neonatal respiratory insufficiency include respiratory distress syndrome (RDS), transient tachypnea of the newborn (TTN), pneumonia, and apnea of prematurity. Without timely intervention, these conditions can lead to rapid clinical deterioration and significant long-term sequelae, such as bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH), or mortality.
The physiological immaturity of the neonatal lung significantly contributes to the high incidence of respiratory complications in preterm and term neonates with perinatal distress. In premature infants, incomplete alveolarization and insufficient surfactant production often lead to alveolar collapse.
These factors, coupled with a compliant chest wall, underdeveloped respiratory musculature, and increased oxygen demands, create a scenario where neonates are prone to atelectasis, hypoventilation, and respiratory failure (2). Consequently, mechanical or non-invasive ventilatory support is frequently initiated shortly after birth to stabilize gas exchange and reduce the work of breathing.
Over the past few decades, the field of neonatal respiratory support has evolved dramatically. Mechanical ventilation, once the cornerstone of neonatal respiratory care, has increasingly been supplanted by lung-protective strategies designed to minimize the risks of ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI).
Innovations such as volume-targeted ventilation (VTV), high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (HFOV), and neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) have significantly improved synchronization and pressure control. Parallel advances in monitoring technology, including electrical impedance tomography (EIT) and artificial intelligence (AI)-based ventilator analytics, now offer real-time, individualized feedback for optimized care (3).
This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of current strategies and innovations in neonatal respiratory support. It covers the physiological basis for respiratory assistance in neonates, details conventional and emerging ventilatory approaches, and explores the implications of novel technologies.
Additionally, it discusses the persistent challenges encountered in low-resource settings and outlines future directions for research and clinical practice. Through this review, we seek to inform clinicians, researchers, and policymakers about the current state and future potential of neonatal respiratory care worldwide.
Physiology and Pathophysiology in Neonatal Respiratory
The transition from intrauterine to extrauterine life presents substantial respiratory challenges for neonates, particularly those born prematurely. In utero, gas exchange occurs via the placenta, with the fetal lungs remaining fluid-filled and relatively inactive.
At birth, this abruptly changes, necessitating rapid clearance of lung fluid, the onset of spontaneous breathing, and functional pulmonary circulation. The success of this transition is highly dependent on lung maturity, surfactant availability, and coordinated cardiorespiratory function.
Lung development progresses through several distinct stages: embryonic, pseudoglandular, canalicular, saccular, and alveolar. Alveolarization—the formation of functional gas-exchange units—begins around 36 weeks of gestation and continues postnatally.
In preterm infants, especially those born before 32 weeks, alveolar and capillary networks are insufficiently developed to support efficient gas exchange (2). This underdevelopment contributes to poor lung compliance, increased airway resistance, and ineffective ventilation.
One of the most critical deficits in preterm lung function is the lack of surfactant, a lipoprotein complex that reduces surface tension and prevents alveolar collapse. Surfactant deficiency leads to decreased lung compliance, atelectasis, and impaired oxygenation—the hallmark features of Respiratory Distress Syndrome (RDS).
Additionally, the neonatal chest wall is highly compliant, offering little resistance to inward recoil, and the diaphragm is relatively underpowered, further limiting ventilation efficiency.
Several pathophysiological conditions arise from these anatomical and functional limitations. Transient Tachypnea of the Newborn (TTN) is common in term and near-term infants and is caused by delayed absorption of fetal lung fluid.
In contrast, apnea of prematurity results from the immaturity of brainstem respiratory centers, leading to episodic cessation of breathing. While the underlying mechanisms differ for these conditions, both may necessitate some form of respiratory assistance, whether invasive or non-invasive.
In addition to pulmonary immaturity, hemodynamic and systemic challenges—such as persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN), patent ductus arteriosus (PDA), or sepsis—can compound respiratory compromise. Hypoxemia and acidosis further increase pulmonary vascular resistance, worsening oxygenation and potentially causing right-to-left shunting.
Collectively, these factors explain why many neonates, especially those born prematurely or with perinatal complications, require respiratory support. Understanding the unique physiology and vulnerabilities of the neonatal lung is essential for selecting the appropriate support strategy and optimizing outcomes.
Condition
Gestational Age Affected
Pathophysiology
Clinical Features
CXR Findings
Initial Management
Need for Respiratory Support
Respiratory Distress Syndrome (RDS)
<32 weeks (mostly preterm)
Surfactant deficiency → alveolar collapse → poor gas exchange
Invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) is a critical intervention for neonates with life-threatening respiratory failure, often due to surfactant deficiency, structural lung immaturity, or systemic complications such as sepsis or persistent pulmonary hypertension.
While IMV can be life-saving, it is associated with significant risks, necessitating careful selection of ventilatory modes, parameters, and weaning strategies to optimize outcomes and reduce harm (4, 5).
Invasive Ventilation Modes and Strategies
Several ventilatory modes are used in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs), each tailored to specific clinical needs:
Assist-Control Ventilation (A/C): Delivers preset breaths, which can be initiated by the neonate or the ventilator. While maintaining adequate minute ventilation, this mode carries an increased risk of asynchrony and volutrauma (lung injury caused by excessive tidal volumes).
Synchronized Intermittent Mandatory Ventilation (SIMV): Synchronizes mandatory breaths with spontaneous respiratory efforts, improving patient comfort and reducing the risk of hyperventilation.
Volume-Targeted Ventilation (VTV): Automatically adjusts pressure to deliver consistent tidal volumes. Studies indicate that VTV reduces the incidence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), hypocarbia, and intraventricular hemorrhage compared to pressure-limited modes (6, 7).
High-Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation (HFOV): Utilizes rapid oscillations at small tidal volumes, thereby maintaining lung recruitment while minimizing barotrauma. Newer strategies now emphasize volume targeting during HFOV, leading to better control of CO₂ and improved outcomes (7, 8).
Lung-Protective Strategies
Modern neonatal ventilation prioritizes lung protection by minimizing injury from overdistension and repetitive collapse-reopening:
Permissive Hypercapnia: This strategy tolerates moderate hypercapnia to reduce ventilation pressures and associated lung injury.
Open Lung Strategy: This approach incorporates lung recruitment maneuvers and optimal PEEP (Positive End-Expiratory Pressure) titration to prevent atelectasis and minimize dynamic strain (9).
Volume Guarantee Modes: Integrated into many modern ventilators, these modes ensure the delivery of targeted volumes during each breath, regardless of compliance changes.
Innovations such as artificial intelligence (AI)-guided pressure titration and real-time electrical impedance tomography (EIT) are increasingly integrated to personalize lung protection strategies (2, 3).
Risks and Adverse Outcomes
Invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) is associated with several short- and long-term complications, including:
Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury (VILI): This encompasses barotrauma, volutrauma, atelectrauma, and biotrauma, all of which are primary contributors to bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD).
Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia (VAP): A significant nosocomial infection risk that can prolong NICU stay and worsen outcomes.
Laryngeal and Airway Injury: Prolonged intubation can lead to subglottic stenosis and tracheomalacia, particularly in very low birth weight (VLBW) infants.
Chronic Lung Disease: Up to 50% of preterm infants requiring prolonged IMV develop BPD, with lasting implications for pulmonary and neurodevelopment (10).
Extubation and Weaning in Neonates
The transition from invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) to spontaneous breathing is a critical juncture in neonatal respiratory care. Premature or failed extubation can lead to increased morbidity, prolonged hospital stays, and a higher risk of complications such as ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), airway trauma, and bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) (11). Therefore, the timing and strategy for weaning and extubation must be both evidence-based and individualized.
Physiological Readiness for Extubation
Successful extubation depends on the maturity and coordination of respiratory control, adequate gas exchange, and respiratory muscle endurance. Clinicians assess multiple physiological parameters before attempting extubation, including:
Adequate Spontaneous Respiratory Drive: Demonstrated by consistent respiratory effort with an acceptable respiratory rate.
Stable Gas Exchange: Pre-extubation arterial blood gases should show a pH > 7.25, PaCO₂ < 60 mmHg (for most neonates), and SpO₂ in the target range on an FiO₂ < 0.4.
Minimal Ventilator Support: Indicated by peak inspiratory pressure (PIP) < 20 cmH₂O, PEEP ≤ 5 cmH₂O, and mean airway pressure (MAP) within safe limits.
Hemodynamic Stability: Absence of significant cardiovascular instability, apnea, or bradycardia episodes.
Premature infants are especially vulnerable to extubation failure due to underdeveloped respiratory musculature, immature central respiratory control, and a highly compliant chest wall (12).
Clinical Predictors and Tools
While there is no universally accepted extubation readiness index, several approaches have shown promise:
Spontaneous Breathing Trials (SBTs): Typically lasting 3–5 minutes, SBTs assess the neonate’s ability to breathe spontaneously with minimal pressure support. Success in SBTs correlates strongly with extubation success in older infants but has mixed predictive value in preterm infants (13).
Extubation Readiness Scores (ERS): Composite tools incorporating variables like gestational age, respiratory pattern, minute ventilation, and neurological status are under investigation to standardize assessments (3).
Diaphragmatic Ultrasound and EIT: Novel non-invasive imaging modalities such as diaphragmatic excursion measurement and electrical impedance tomography (EIT) can aid in assessing respiratory effort and lung aeration prior to extubation (2).
Weaning Strategies
Weaning protocols can be gradual or abrupt, depending on the patient’s underlying condition, lung maturity, and ventilator settings. Common strategies include:
Stepwise Reduction: This involves progressively decreasing ventilator support parameters (e.g., Peak Inspiratory Pressure [PIP], respiratory rate, FiO₂) while continuously monitoring for signs of distress or desaturation.
Mode Transitioning: This strategy involves transitioning from synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation (SIMV) or assist-control (A/C) to pressure support ventilation (PSV) or continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) before extubation.
Volume Guarantee Titration: Ensuring the delivery of a minimum tidal volume, even during low spontaneous effort, helps prevent underventilation before extubation.
Extubation Failure and Its Implications
Extubation failure—defined as the need for reintubation within 48–72 hours—occurs in up to 30–40% of extremely preterm infants. Risk factors include:
Birth weight < 1000g
Gestational age < 28 weeks
History of sepsis or intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH)
High FiO₂ (> 0.5) at the time of extubation
Poor weight gain or neuromuscular tone
The consequences of failed extubation are significant: repeated intubation increases the risk of vocal cord injury, subglottic stenosis, and worsens lung inflammation, potentially exacerbating bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) (9, 11).
To mitigate this risk, post-extubation support strategies include the early use of non-invasive ventilation (e.g., nasal continuous positive airway pressure [nCPAP], bilevel positive airway pressure [BiPAP], high-flow nasal cannula [HFNC]) and pharmacologic agents like caffeine citrate, which has been shown to reduce apnea and improve extubation outcomes in preterm infants (10).
Non-Invasive Ventilation Strategies in Neonatal Respiratory
Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) plays a pivotal role in neonatal respiratory support, particularly in preterm infants, by providing respiratory assistance while avoiding the risks associated with endotracheal intubation. The primary goal of NIV is to maintain adequate gas exchange, reduce the work of breathing, and prevent lung injury associated with invasive ventilation. Over the past two decades, this field has evolved significantly, offering a range of NIV modalities with improved patient outcomes.
Modes of Non-Invasive Ventilation
Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (nCPAP) is the most widely used non-invasive technique in neonatal units. It operates by maintaining a constant distending pressure in the airways, thereby preventing alveolar collapse, improving functional residual capacity, and decreasing the work of breathing.
NCPAP is particularly effective in the early management of Respiratory Distress Syndrome (RDS) and has been shown to reduce the need for mechanical ventilation and the risk of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (14).
Nasal Intermittent Positive Pressure Ventilation (NIPPV) and its variant, Bilevel Positive Airway Pressure (BiPAP), deliver intermittent pressure boosts over a CPAP baseline. NIPPV improves minute ventilation, augments tidal volumes, and is especially effective during weaning or post-extubation. Studies indicate that NIPPV reduces extubation failure compared to nCPAP, although its superiority in primary respiratory support is less conclusive (15, 16).
Heated Humidified High-Flow Nasal Cannula (HHHFNC) delivers warmed, humidified air-oxygen blends at flow rates sufficient to wash out nasopharyngeal dead space and provide a low level of positive pressure. Its simplicity, comfort, and ease of use have led to its widespread adoption. However, HHHFNC may provide insufficient support in infants with moderate to severe RDS, particularly those younger than 28 weeks of gestation (17).
Non-invasive Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist (NAVA) utilizes diaphragmatic electromyographic signals to trigger ventilator assistance, offering highly synchronized support. While promising, this modality is currently limited to specialized centers and remains under evaluation in large-scale clinical trials (18).
Interfaces and Delivery Systems
The effectiveness of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is profoundly influenced by the interface used. Poorly fitted or inappropriate interfaces can lead to pressure leak, ineffective ventilation, or skin injury. A range of nasal interfaces is available, each with unique advantages and trade-offs:
Interface Type
Pressure Delivery
Comfort/Tolerability
Risk of Nasal Trauma
Leak Management
Common Use
Short Binasal Prongs (e.g., Hudson)
Reliable, low resistance
Moderate
High (esp. septal)
Good fit required
CPAP, NIPPV
Nasal Masks
Broad surface area
Moderate–High
Moderate
Lower risk of leak
CPAP, NIPPV
RAM Cannula
Variable pressures
High
Low–Moderate
Prone to leak
Low-level CPAP
Nasopharyngeal Tube
Moderate, stable
Low
High
Minimal leak
CPAP (esp. in LMICs)
There is no definitive consensus on the most effective interface; however, rotating between nasal prongs and masks is widely recommended to prevent skin breakdown (19, 20).
Failure Criteria and Escalation Indicators
Recognizing non-invasive ventilation (NIV) failure early is essential to avoid delays in mechanical ventilation, which are associated with higher morbidity. Failure criteria include:
Arterial pH < 7.25 with PaCO₂ > 65 mmHg
Sustained FiO₂ > 0.4 to maintain SpO₂ targets
Recurrent apnea (>6 episodes/hour) or severe bradycardia
Respiratory muscle fatigue and signs of distress
Hemodynamic instability
Adjuncts such as rescue surfactant therapy—administered via the INSURE (Intubation, Surfactant, Extubation) or LISA (Less Invasive Surfactant Administration) methods—can help reduce the likelihood of NIV failure and progression to mechanical ventilation (17, 21).
Clinical Outcomes and Ongoing Controversies
Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) has been instrumental in reducing rates of intubation, bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD), and ventilator-associated complications. However, several debates remain unresolved:
NIPPV vs. CPAP: While evidence supports NIPPV as superior for reducing extubation failure, its effectiveness in avoiding initial intubation is not uniformly conclusive (15).
HFNC as Primary Support: Although user-friendly and well-tolerated, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) may be suboptimal for more severe cases of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) in preterm infants (14, 16).
Nasal Trauma: Nasal skin breakdown remains a significant complication, particularly with prolonged nCPAP use. Preventive measures include hydrocolloid barriers, alternating interfaces, and vigilant skin checks (19).
Protocol Variability: A lack of standardized protocols for the initiation, escalation, and weaning of NIV persists across institutions, highlighting the need for consensus guidelines and further research (22).
3. Hsu, J. F., Lin, Y. C., Lin, C. Y., Chu, S. M., & Cheng, H. J. (2025). Deep learning models for early and accurate diagnosis of ventilator-associated pneumonia in mechanically ventilated neonates. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 162, Article 107511. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010482525002938
4. Chakkarapani, A. A., Adappa, R., Ali, S. K. M., & Gupta, S. (2020). Current concepts in assisted mechanical ventilation in the neonate: Part 2. International Journal of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 7(4), 179–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpam.2020.07.006
5. Schulzke SM, Stoecklin B. Update on ventilatory management of extremely preterm infants. Pediatr Anesth. 2022;32(5):432-40. https://doi.org/10.1111/pan.14369
6. Keszler, M. (2017). Volume-targeted ventilation: One size does not fit all. Seminars in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, 22(6), 369–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.siny.2017.08.002
7. Tingay, D. G., Dahm, S. I., & Sett, A. (2025). Are we ready for volume targeting during high-frequency oscillatory ventilation in neonates? Pediatric Research. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41390-025-04015-y
10. Shi, Y., & De Luca, D. (2019). Noninvasive respiratory support strategies after extubation in preterm neonates. BMC Pediatrics, 19, Article 1625. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-019-1625-1
11. Ozer, E. A. (2020). Lung-protective ventilation in neonatal intensive care unit. Journal of Clinical Neonatology, 9(3), 105–113. https://10.4103/jcn.JCN_96_19
12. Egbuta, C., & Easley, R. B. (2022). Update on ventilation management in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit. Pediatric Anesthesia, 32(6), 698–708. https://doi.org/10.1111/pan.14374
13. Colaizy, T. T., Elgin, T. G., Berger, J. N., & Thomas, B. A. (2022). Ventilator management in extremely preterm infants. NeoReviews, 23(10), e661–e671. https://doi.org/10.1542/neo.23-10-e661
14. Shi, Y., Muniraman, H., & Biniwale, M. (2020). A review on non-invasive respiratory support for management of respiratory distress in extremely preterm infants. Frontiers in Pediatrics, 8, Article 270. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2020.00270
15. Yuan, G., Liu, H., Wu, Z., & Chen, X. (2021). Comparison of the efficacy and safety of three non-invasive ventilation methods in the initial treatment of premature infants with respiratory distress syndrome. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, 14(2), 375–383. https://e-century.us/files/ijcem/14/2/ijcem0116814.pdf
16. More, K., Ramaswamy, V. V., & Roehr, C. C. (2020). Efficacy of noninvasive respiratory support modes for primary respiratory support in preterm neonates with respiratory distress syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis. Pediatric Pulmonology, 55(6), 1325–1335. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppul.25011
17. Dassios, T., Kaltsogianni, O., & Greenough, A. (2023). Neonatal respiratory support strategies—short and long-term respiratory outcomes. Frontiers in Pediatrics, 11, Article 1212074. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2023.1212074
18. Karnati, S., & Sammour, I. (2020). Non-invasive respiratory support of the premature neonate: from physics to bench to practice. Frontiers in Pediatrics, 8, Article 214. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2020.00214
19. Boel, L., Hixson, T., Brown, L., Sage, J., & Kotecha, S. (2022). Non-invasive respiratory support in preterm infants. Paediatric Respiratory Reviews, 44, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prrv.2022.01.004
20. Ramaswamy, V. V., Devi, R., & Kumar, G. (2023). Non-invasive ventilation in neonates: a review of current literature. Frontiers in Pediatrics, 11, Article 1248836. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2023.1248836
21. Permall, D. L., Pasha, A. B., & Chen, X. (2019). Current insights in non-invasive ventilation for the treatment of neonatal respiratory disease. Italian Journal of Pediatrics, 45, 70. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13052-019-0707-x
22. Hussain, W. A., & Marks, J. D. (2019). Approaches to noninvasive respiratory support in preterm infants: from CPAP to NAVA. NeoReviews, 20(4), e213–e225.
Home mechanical ventilation refers to the support or complete replacement of spontaneous breathing using mechanical ventilator devices in patients with respiratory failure, provided within a home setting. These systems are typically initiated in a hospital environment and transferred to the home once the patient has achieved a stable condition.
Protection against power outages: Generator or uninterruptible power supply (UPS)
Trained caregiver: A family member or professional nurse with appropriate training
Medical follow-up: Regular monitoring by a pulmonologist, respiratory therapist, and a home healthcare team
Hygiene: Particularly important for patients with tracheostomies, due to the high risk of infection
Family and Patient Education for HMV
Relatives of patients receiving home mechanical ventilation must be educated on:
Proper use of the ventilator and related equipment
Emergency response procedures
Cleaning and maintenance of the devices
Breathing exercises and airway clearance techniques
Risks and Considerations
Risk of infection, especially in tracheostomized patients
Device malfunction or failure
Airway obstruction due to secretions or improper positioning
Ventilator inoperability during power outages, if no backup system is available
Advantages of Home Mechanical Ventilation
Reduced length of hospital stay
A more comfortable and familiar living environment
Positive impact on the patient’s psychological well-being
Emotional support from being close to family members
Benefits for Patients and Caregivers
There are several essential considerations for patients receiving home mechanical ventilation and the individuals who care for them. The primary goals are to ensure the patient’s safety and to facilitate the caregiver’s responsibilities.
Proper use of respiratory devices is critical for patients to maintain a safe and comfortable life at home. Both the patient and caregiver must receive training on how the ventilator functions, the meanings of alarm signals, and when to seek medical assistance. In addition, spare parts, batteries, and cleaning supplies for the equipment should always be readily available.
Maintaining the patient’s emotional well-being is equally as important as providing physical care. Establishing a consistent daily routine, promoting social interaction, and avoiding prolonged periods in the same position help support both psychological and physical health. Skin care and oral hygiene must not be neglected, especially since infection risk is significantly higher in these patients.
Caregivers must adhere strictly to hygiene protocols, wash their hands frequently, and apply sterile techniques—especially when caring for patients with tracheostomies. Regular cleaning of the equipment, correct usage, and consistent monitoring are essential. At least one person in the household should be trained in basic first aid to respond to emergencies, and precautions must be taken to address potential power outages.
Importantly, the emotional dimension of this process should not be overlooked. Long-term caregivers are at risk of burnout and should seek support and allow time for rest. Regular medical check-ups and professional home care support are vital to maintaining the long-term sustainability of home mechanical ventilation.
FAQs
1. Is home mechanical ventilation safe? Yes, it is generally safe when proper equipment is used, caregivers are trained, and there is regular medical supervision.
2. What happens in the event of a power outage? If the ventilator has a battery, it will continue to operate for a limited time. However, a generator or uninterruptible power supply (UPS) should always be available as a backup.
3. Can a patient on mechanical ventilation be fed? Yes. Depending on the clinical situation, feeding can be done orally or via a feeding tube, under the guidance of a physician or dietitian.
Neuromonitoring is a vital medical technology that provides real-time assessments of the nervous system’s functional integrity during surgeries and critical care situations. It plays a crucial role in preventing neurological damage, particularly in neurosurgery, spinal surgery, ENT procedures, and intensive care units (ICUs).
This technology, which includes techniques such as electroencephalography (EEG), electromyography (EMG), and evoked potentials, has evolved significantly since its inception in the early 20th century. The integration of these systems into clinical practice began gaining momentum in the 1970s and 1980s, improving surgical outcomes by enabling early detection of potential neural compromise.
The significance of neuromonitoring lies in its ability to enhance patient safety, reduce surgical risks, and optimize clinical decision-making by offering real-time neurophysiological feedback.
Furthermore, with advances in artificial intelligence (AI), cloud computing, and miniaturization, the future of neuromonitoring promises to enhance its precision, accessibility, and adaptability, further transforming its role in patient care.
This review explores the historical development, clinical applications, and future directions of neuromonitoring, highlighting its growing importance in modern medicine.
Introduction to Neuromonitoring
The origins of neuromonitoring date back to the early 20th century, with the invention of:
Electroencephalography (EEG) in the 1920s by Hans Berger, which provided a method to monitor electrical activity in the brain (1).
Electromyography (EMG) in the 1940s, allowing for the recording of muscle responses triggered by nerve stimulation (2).
However, intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) gained widespread adoption in the 1970s and 1980s, following advancements in signal processing, neurophysiology, and instrumentation that made real-time monitoring feasible during complex surgeries (3).
Neuromonitoring is fundamentally rooted in the principles of neurophysiology, the branch of physiology that explores the functional properties of the nervous system at cellular, molecular, and systemic levels (4).
The nervous system operates through the generation and propagation of electrical impulses known as action potentials, which are initiated by ion exchange across neuronal membranes (4). These action potentials are essential for transmitting information between neurons and from neurons to muscles or sensory receptors via synaptic transmission (4).
In clinical neuromonitoring, these electrical signals are captured and interpreted using a range of techniques that exploit the bioelectrical nature of the nervous system.
Electroencephalography (EEG) records spontaneous electrical activity of the cerebral cortex and is especially valuable in detecting cortical dysfunction or seizure activity (5).
Electromyography (EMG) measures the electrical activity produced by skeletal muscles and is widely used to assess peripheral nerve integrity, particularly during spinal and cranial surgeries (6).
Evoked potentials (EPs), such as Somatosensory Evoked Potentials (SSEPs) and Motor Evoked Potentials (MEPs), are used to monitor the functional pathways of the central nervous system by applying a stimulus and recording the response (7).
SSEPs test the integrity of ascending sensory pathways, while MEPs evaluate descending motor pathways, especially useful in spinal and neurosurgical procedures (7).
Advanced neuromonitoring often integrates multimodal approaches, combining several neurophysiological techniques simultaneously to provide comprehensive feedback on the functional status of different components of the nervous system (8).
These techniques rely on both surface electrodes (placed on the scalp or skin) and needle electrodes (inserted intramuscularly or subdermally) for precise localization and quantification of neural activity.
Clinically, these signals serve as real-time indicators of neural integrity. A sudden loss or attenuation of an evoked potential, for example, may indicate ischemia, mechanical compression, or direct trauma to a neural structure (9).
This real-time feedback allows surgeons and anesthesiologists to adjust surgical technique, reposition instruments, or modify anesthesia protocols to mitigate the risk of permanent neurological injury (9). The integration of neurophysiological principles into intraoperative and critical care monitoring has therefore become essential for enhancing surgical safety, improving neurological outcomes, and reducing medico-legal risks (9).
Neuromonitoring is a medical technology designed to assess and monitor the functional integrity of the nervous system in real-time during surgeries and critical care situations. It plays a vital role in neurosurgery, spinal surgery, ENT procedures, and critical care, enabling healthcare professionals to detect and prevent neurological damage before it becomes irreversible (9).
By continuously measuring electrical activity in the brain, spinal cord, and peripheral nerves, neuromonitoring enhances patient safety, surgical precision, and overall outcomes.
Definition of Neuromonitor
A neuromonitor, short for neurological monitor or neuromonitoring device, is a medical diagnostic tool designed to continuously assess and record electrical activity within the nervous system (10). It plays a critical role in detecting early signs of neurological impairment, especially during high-risk surgeries or in intensive care settings (11).
These devices are vital in ensuring the functional integrity of neural structures—such as the brain, spinal cord, and peripheral nerves—remains intact during procedures where these structures are vulnerable to injury (12).
Applications of Neuromonitors in Medicine
Neuromonitoring is utilized across a wide spectrum of clinical settings where real-time assessment of nervous system function is critical for patient safety. Its primary application is in the intraoperative environment, where it serves as a safeguard during surgeries that pose a risk to neural structures such as the brain, spinal cord, or peripheral nerves (2,8).
By continuously tracking neural signals, neuromonitoring helps surgeons detect early signs of nerve irritation or injury, enabling immediate corrective measures to prevent long-term deficits (3,8). Beyond the operating room, neuromonitoring is also employed in intensive care units (ICUs) to evaluate brain activity in patients with traumatic brain injury, stroke, or coma (11,13).
Additionally, it plays a key role in neurological diagnostics, such as epilepsy monitoring and assessing neuromuscular disorders (5,7). As such, neuromonitoring has become a cornerstone of modern neuroprotective strategies across various disciplines of medicine (9).
1. Intraoperative Neuromonitoring (IONM) in Surgery
Neuromonitors are extensively used during surgeries to monitor neural pathways and prevent neurological injuries. Their primary applications include:
Neurosurgery: Used for procedures such as brain tumor removal, epilepsy surgery, and aneurysm clipping, where preserving functional brain areas is essential (5,8).
Spinal Surgery: Ensures spinal cord integrity during procedures like scoliosis correction, spinal decompression, and spinal fusion surgeries using Somatosensory Evoked Potentials (SSEPs) and Motor Evoked Potentials (MEPs) (3,7,8).
Peripheral Nerve Surgery: Protects motor and sensory nerves during surgeries involving limbs or facial nerve reconstruction (8).
Vascular Surgery: Reduces the risk of stroke by monitoring brain activity and blood flow during carotid endarterectomy and aortic aneurysm repair (8).
Example: During spinal fusion surgery, SSEPs and MEPs are employed to continuously monitor the spinal cord’s functional integrity, minimizing the risk of postoperative neurological deficits (3,7).
2. Intensive Care Unit (ICU) & Neurocritical Monitoring
Neuromonitors are critical in the ICU for continuous assessment of brain function, particularly for patients with severe neurological conditions.
Coma & Brain Death Assessment: Using Continuous EEG (cEEG) to detect non-convulsive seizures or assess brain activity in unresponsive patients (11,13).
Video-EEG Monitoring: Simultaneously records physical symptoms and electrical activity during seizures (14).
Intracranial Depth Electrodes: Used for mapping seizure-prone areas in surgical candidates (14).
Example: Neuromonitoring helps identify the precise brain region responsible for seizure activity, guiding surgical removal of the affected area when medication is ineffective (14).
4. Anesthesia & Sedation Monitoring
Neuromonitoring is increasingly used to optimize anesthesia and sedation levels during surgery.
Bispectral Index (BIS) Monitoring: Measures depth of anesthesia to prevent under- or over-sedation (15).
Processed EEG (pEEG): Adjusts anesthesia dosage based on real-time brain activity (15).
Example: BIS monitoring ensures patients receive the appropriate level of anesthesia during high-risk neurosurgical procedures, enhancing recovery and minimizing side effects (15).
5. Neurological Research & Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCI)
Neuromonitors are essential for developing brain-machine interfaces (BMIs) and enhancing neuroprosthetic technologies.
Neuroprosthetics & Robotics: Allow paralyzed individuals to control external devices using brain signals (16).
AI-Driven Cognitive Monitoring: Facilitates early detection of dementia and other neurodegenerative conditions (16).
Neurofeedback therapy: Used in treating Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and cognitive rehabilitation (16). Example: EEG-based BCIs allow individuals with severe disabilities to communicate and control assistive devices using brain signals alone (16).
Technical Aspects of Neuromonitors
Neuromonitoring systems rely on a combination of sophisticated hardware and intelligent software to deliver real-time insights into neural function. From core sensors and signal processing techniques to intuitive interfaces and portable designs, each component plays a vital role in ensuring accurate, reliable, and clinically meaningful monitoring.
1. Core Sensors & Electrodes Used in Neuromonitoring
Neuromonitors employ various sensors to capture neural activity:
EEG Electrodes (Scalp & Depth Electrodes): Record brain electrical activity.
EMG Electrodes: Measure muscle activity to evaluate nerve integrity.
SSEP & MEP Electrodes: Stimulate and monitor sensory and motor pathways.
Intracranial Pressure (ICP) Sensors: Monitor brain swelling in TBI patients.
2. Signal Processing & Interpretation
Amplification: Enhances weak neural signals for accurate interpretation.
Filtering: Removes artifacts caused by muscle movement, eye blinks, and external noise.
Machine Learning Algorithms: AI-based software identifies early-stage seizures, cerebral ischemia, and other anomalies.
Example: AI-enhanced EEG systems can predict seizures several hours before clinical symptoms appear, allowing for early interventions.
3. User Interface & Data Visualization
Modern neuromonitors offer intuitive interfaces that provide:
Real-time multi-channel waveforms.
Automated alerts for abnormal neural activity.
3D Brain Mapping for surgical guidance.
Remote Monitoring via cloud-based AI.
Example: Portable neuromonitors like the Natus Brain Monitor provide continuous EEG tracking in ICUs, with instant alerts sent to clinicians’ mobile devices.
4. Wireless & Portable Neuromonitoring Devices
Technological advancements have led to portable and wireless systems that enhance patient accessibility:
Wearable EEG Headsets: Used for epilepsy monitoring and sleep disorder diagnosis.
Telemedicine-Enabled Diagnostics: Allows remote monitoring and care.
Wireless Neurostimulators: Assist patients with Parkinson’s disease and chronic pain.
Example: Bioscope by Biosys, initially a dual-channel neuromonitoring system for ENT, hand, and facial surgeries, is currently advancing to a 16-channel platform to expand its capabilities in both traditional and remote surgical environments.
Significance of Neuromonitoring
The nervous system, comprising the brain, spinal cord, and peripheral nerves, is highly vulnerable to injury during surgical interventions, trauma, or critical illness (4).
Even minimal damage to these structures can lead to devastating and often irreversible consequences such as motor deficits, sensory loss, chronic pain, paralysis, or cognitive dysfunction (4,9). This is particularly true during procedures involving delicate anatomical regions such as the spine, brainstem, cranial nerves, or peripheral nerve plexuses (8).
Intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM) serves as a real-time surveillance system, enabling surgeons and anesthesiologists to continuously evaluate the functional integrity of neural pathways during surgical procedures (3,8).
By detecting subtle changes in neural activity, IONM provides early warning signs of potential nerve compromise before structural damage becomes permanent (8). This allows the surgical team to immediately adjust their technique—such as repositioning surgical tools, reducing traction, or altering the depth of anesthesia—to prevent injury (3,8).
Furthermore, neuromonitoring contributes to improved functional and neurological outcomes. Numerous clinical studies have shown that the use of IONM in spine and brain surgeries significantly reduces the incidence of postoperative neurological deficits (9,17).
For instance, in scoliosis correction or tumor resection surgeries, monitoring somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs) and motor evoked potentials (MEPs) helps ensure spinal cord integrity throughout the operation (7,9,17).
In critical care settings, such as the intensive care unit (ICU), neuromonitoring technologies like EEG and bispectral index (BIS) allow clinicians to assess brain function in patients with coma, traumatic brain injury, or under sedation (11,13,15).
This enables timely interventions that may mitigate secondary brain injury, optimize ventilator management, or evaluate seizure activity (11,13,15).
In summary, the importance of neuromonitoring lies in its ability to:
Enhance surgical safety by reducing the risk of intraoperative nerve damage (8,9).
Support clinical decision-making with real-time neurophysiological feedback (8,9).
Improve prognosis and long-term outcomes by preserving neurological function (9,17).
Reduce healthcare burden by preventing complications that may lead to prolonged hospitalization, rehabilitation, or lifelong disability (17).
As surgical procedures become more complex and patient populations more vulnerable, the role of neuromonitoring becomes increasingly essential in delivering high-quality, patient-centered care (9,17).
Future of Neuromonitoring
Neuromonitoring is undergoing a transformative evolution driven by technological advancements, with the future promising smarter, more adaptive, and more accessible monitoring solutions (16,18). As surgical procedures grow increasingly complex and precision becomes paramount, the demand for advanced neuromonitoring capabilities has never been greater (9,18).
Future directions in this field are largely shaped by the integration of artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, cloud-based platforms, and real-time remote monitoring, all of which aim to enhance safety, efficiency, and patient outcomes (16,18,19).
1. Artificial Intelligence and Predictive Analytics
AI is beginning to revolutionize how neuromonitoring data is interpreted. By applying machine learning algorithms to large datasets of neurophysiological signals, systems can identify subtle patterns and deviations that may precede neurological injury (16,18). This allows for predictive diagnostics, enabling clinicians to act before critical thresholds are crossed. For example, AI-enhanced systems can detect early signs of ischemia or nerve traction injuries based on changes in signal amplitude or latency long before these would be apparent to the human eye (16,18,19).
2. Cloud-Based Data Storage and Analysis
The integration of cloud computing facilitates secure, centralized storage and analysis of neuromonitoring data (20). This approach offers several benefits, including:
Long-term tracking of patient neurological trends (20).
Facilitating multi-center collaborations and comparative studies (20).
Providing remote access to data for expert consultations, even during surgery (20).
Enabling real-time audits and quality assurance for improved accountability and outcomes (20).
3. Remote and Telemonitoring Capabilities
With the rise of telemedicine, neuromonitoring systems are beginning to support remote supervision (21). This allows expert neurophysiologists to oversee and interpret intraoperative neuromonitoring from different locations, enhancing the availability of specialized care in rural or underserved hospitals (21). This development also supports the scalability of neuromonitoring services, ensuring that high-risk procedures can be safely conducted even in lower-resourced settings (21).
4. Miniaturization and Wearable Neuromonitors
The development of portable and wearable neuromonitoring devices is another key innovation on the horizon (22). These compact systems can continuously monitor neural activity outside the operating room — such as in ICU patients, during sleep studies, or in home rehabilitation settings — offering clinicians new ways to manage and follow neurological function over time (22).
5. Enhanced User Interfaces and Automation
Modern neuromonitoring systems are being designed with more intuitive user interfaces, automatic signal calibration, and smart artifact reduction features (19,22). These improvements reduce the cognitive and technical load on operating room staff and improve the accuracy and reliability of the recorded data (19,22).
6. Integration with Surgical Robotics and Navigation
As robot-assisted surgeries become more common, future neuromonitoring systems are being designed to integrate seamlessly with robotic platforms and navigation systems (23). This allows real-time neurophysiological feedback to directly guide robotic movement, reducing human error and increasing surgical precision (23).
The future of neuromonitoring is geared toward making surgeries safer, more efficient, and more patient-specific (18,19). With ongoing advances in AI, connectivity, hardware, and interface design, neuromonitoring is poised to become an even more integral part of precision medicine and surgical care (16,18,19).
These innovations will not only enhance intraoperative decision-making but also expand the reach of neuromonitoring into diagnostics, rehabilitation, and long-term neurological care (16,19,22).
References
Berger, H. (1929). Über das Elektrenkephalogramm des Menschen. Archiv für Psychiatrie und Nervenkrankheiten, 87(1), 527–570. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01797193
Preston, D. C., & Shapiro, B. E. (2013). Electromyography and neuromuscular disorders: Clinical-electrophysiologic correlations (3rd ed.). Elsevier.
MacDonald, D. B. (2006). Intraoperative motor evoked potential monitoring: Overview and update. Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing, 20(5), 347–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-006-9040-6
Purves, D., Augustine, G. J., & Fitzpatrick, D. (2018). Neuroscience (6th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Niedermeyer, E., & da Silva, F. L. (2004). Electroencephalography: Basic principles, clinical applications, and related fields (5th ed.). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Dumitru, D., Amato, A. A., & Zwarts, M. J. (2002). Electrodiagnostic medicine (2nd ed.). Hanley & Belfus.
Nuwer, M. R. (1998). Intraoperative monitoring of neural function. In Handbook of Clinical Neurophysiology (Vol. 3, pp. 841–871). Elsevier.
Sala, F., & Deletis, V. (2007). Intraoperative neurophysiology in neurosurgery: A short overview. Clinical Neurophysiology, 118(3), 525–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2006.10.021
Skinner, S. A., Transfeldt, E. E., & Grafton, S. T. (2008). Intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring: A review of techniques used to monitor the nervous system during spine surgery. Neurosurgical Focus, 25(3), E6. https://doi.org/10.3171/FOC/2008/25/9/E6
MacDonald, D. B., Skinner, S., Shils, J., & Yingling, C. (2013). Intraoperative motor evoked potential monitoring – A position statement by the American Society of Neurophysiological Monitoring. Clinical Neurophysiology, 124(12), 2291–2316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2013.07.025
Oddo, M., Bösel, J., Helbok, R., et al. (2018). Monitoring the injured brain: ICP and advanced neuromonitoring. Intensive Care Medicine, 44(12), 1888–1890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-018-5448-2
Nuwer, M. R., Dawson, E. G., Carlson, L. G., & Kanim, L. E. (1995). Somatosensory evoked potential spinal cord monitoring reduces neurologic deficits after scoliosis surgery: Results of a large multicenter survey. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 96(1), 6–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-4694(95)00035-6
Smith, S. J. M. (2005). EEG in the diagnosis, classification, and management of patients with epilepsy. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 76(suppl 2), ii2–ii7. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.2005.069245
Rampil, I. J. (1998). A primer for EEG signal processing in anesthesia. Anesthesiology, 89(4), 980–1002. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000542-199810000-00023
Lebedev, M. A., & Nicolelis, M. A. L. (2006). Brain–machine interfaces: past, present and future. Trends in Neurosciences, 29(9), 536–546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2006.07.004
Chuang, C. F., Chen, Y. J., Chang, Y. J., et al. (2021). Artificial intelligence applications in intraoperative neuromonitoring: A review. Frontiers in Medicine, 8, 655105. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.655105
Fehlings, M. G., Brodke, D. S., Norvell, D. C., & Dettori, J. R. (2010). The evidence for intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring in spine surgery: Does it make a difference? Spine, 35(9 Suppl), S37–S46. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181d82c74
Varatharajan, R., & Navaneethakrishnan, S. (2020). Artificial intelligence based neural monitoring and robotics in surgery. Surgical Innovation, 27(6), 663–673. https://doi.org/10.1177/1553350620943535
El-Osta, A., Elghazaly, A., & Said, M. (2022). Cloud computing in healthcare: Review and research challenges. Healthcare Technology Letters, 9(2), 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1049/htl2.12016
Garcia, R. M., & Sherman, E. M. (2020). Tele-neuromonitoring: Intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring from a distance. Clinical Neurophysiology, 131(1), 305–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2019.10.022
Khan, M. J., Hong, M. J., & Hong, K. S. (2018). Decoding of four movement directions using hybrid NIRS-EEG brain-computer interface. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 12, 244. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00244
Baek, H., Chung, J., Kim, Y. J., & Park, Y. S. (2021). Real-time neurophysiological monitoring during robot-assisted neurosurgery. Frontiers in Surgery, 8, 658776. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2021.658776
Intraoperative nerve monitoring is a neurophysiological technique that enables real-time monitoring of nerve function during surgical procedures. This method is employed to preserve the anatomical and functional integrity of nerves. IONM serves as a critical tool, particularly in surgeries where there is a risk of nerve injury, by helping to localize nerves and prevent potential damage.
How Is It Used?
IONM is implemented through the use of devices and electrodes that monitor the electrical activity of nerves. The basic steps are as follows:
Surface or needle electrodes are placed either directly on the target nerve or on muscles innervated by that nerve. The muscular responses to stimulation are then recorded.
Low-voltage electrical stimuli are delivered to areas near the nerve within the surgical field.
The signals generated by these stimuli are continuously monitored on the device screen in real time. Any indication of nerve injury or functional impairment is immediately communicated to the surgeon.
Applications of IONM
IONM is utilized across various surgical fields to enhance patient safety. Its primary applications include:
Brain and Spinal Surgery: Used in procedures involving areas close to the spinal cord, brainstem, and cranial nerves.
Head and Neck Surgery: Particularly important in thyroid and parathyroid surgeries for the preservation of the recurrent laryngeal nerve.
Cardiac and Thoracic Surgery: Crucial for protecting nerve structures surrounding major blood vessels.
Orthopedic Surgery: Employed in scoliosis and spinal correction surgeries to prevent spinal cord injury.
Peripheral Nerve Surgery: Essential for preserving nerve function during procedures such as tumor removal or nerve grafting.
Advantages of IONM
Prevents nerve injury.
Enhances surgical safety.
May reduce the duration of postoperative rehabilitation.
Provides real-time feedback to assist and guide the surgeon during the procedure.
Recent Advances in Intraoperative Nerve Monitoring
In recent years, one of the most notable developments in the field of IONM has been the integration of artificial intelligence-based analysis systems. These systems are capable of interpreting signal changes in real time and can alert surgeons in advance of a potential risk of nerve injury. Monitoring systems integrated with robotic surgery platforms allow surgeons to perform complex procedures with increased precision and safety. Additionally, telemonitoring technologies enable experts to provide remote support to surgical teams, making the use of IONM feasible even in centers with limited access to advanced technology. These advancements not only enhance patient safety but also contribute positively to surgical outcomes.
Frequently Asked Questions
1) Is the use of neuromonitoring mandatory in all surgeries? No, the use of neuromonitoring is not required for every surgical procedure. However, in operations where there is a risk of nerve injury nerve preservation is of critical importance. In such cases, neuromonitoring facilitates safer surgical intervention by helping the surgeon avoid nerve damage.
2) Is a neuromonitor available in every hospital? No, not all hospitals are equipped with neuromonitoring systems. University hospitals, training and research hospitals, and some private medical centers—especially those performing advanced surgical procedures—are more likely to have access to this technology.
3) Are neuromonitors operated by doctors? Neuromonitoring is typically conducted by a neurophysiology technician, clinical neurophysiologist, anesthesiologist, or a healthcare professional trained in this field.
References
Chansakul C, Nair DR: Evoked potential monitoring. In:Farag E (ed), Anestesia for Spine Surgery. Cambridge, 2012:89-105
James ML: Anesthetic consideratşons. In: Husain AM, (ed), A Practical Approach to Neurophysiological Intraoperative Monitoring. Demos Medical Publishing, 2008:55-56
Kothbauer KF, Novak K: Intraoperative monitoring for tethered cord surgery: An update. Neurosurg Focus 16: E8, 2004
