Company insight standard care dressings.2 An earlier
intervention with the PICO system in stalled wounds improved the proportion of healed wounds compared to late/ delayed treatment with PICO.1,2 With PICO sNPWT, you don’t have the same pressure on the wound as in traditional NPWT. So the question was, is it as effective? A 2019 study compared the two directly. It has been demonstrated that PICO sNPWT offers greater reductions in wound depth, area and volume over a 12-week treatment period for leg ulcers compared to traditional NPWT (n=161). Thanks to its unique AIRLOCK technology, PICO sNPWT delivers a consistent and optimal negative pressure beyond the zone of injury.4
It offers
and should be “considered the first choice over other types of NPWT when possible”.
I’ll also add that, as a testimony to its safety, efficacy and cost- effectiveness, PICO sNPWT is the only sNPWT to be reimbursed for outpatients in France.
What are the advantages of PICO sNPWT from the patient’s perspective?
The system is attached using a gentle silicone adhesive, which is very comfortable for the patient. It helps to minimise trauma and pain during dressing removal.6
in 10 different sizes so you can adapt it to your wound. It’s a lightweight design and has demonstrated to reduce the total wound care costs through a reduced number of dressing changes in the community compared to standard dressings.
What kind of difference could sNPWT make to the burden of hard-to-heal wounds? If we can use this active type of treatment in our community, we will have less persistence of chronic wounds. We might have fewer acute infections, leading to a potential decrease in antibiotic treatments, as well as lower morbidity.
Practical Patient Care /
www.practical-patient-care.com
significantly more mature collagen suggesting more advanced tissue formation compared to tNPWT (in upper wound tissue, as demonstrated in vivo; p<0.001)5
What does the future hold for sNPWT?
I think that this is the future for wound healing, not only for chronic and hard-to-heal wounds, but also for acute and post-surgical wounds. We don’t have a lot of nurses, we don’t have a lot of doctors. The population is ageing, which means we’ll have more and more wounds. If we had a system that allowed us to change the dressing only once a week, it would give us the time to take care of a lot more patients. It’s not so costly, frankly. So I think it’s a great revolution, and personally, I would always choose to use this type of treatment. ●
1. Hampton J et al (2022) Wounds International 13(2): 46–53
2. McCluskey, P, et al (2020) Journal of Community Nursing, 34(1):36+ 3. Kirsner, R, et al (2019) Wound Repair and Regeneration, 27(5):519-29
4. Smith & Nephew (2019) PICO Biomechanical Study. Internal Report. DS/19/211/R 5. Brownhill VR et al (2019) Adv Wound Care, 0(0):1– 12
6. Stryja J et al (2015), Prolekare, 94(8):322–328
www.smith-nephew.com
Are non-healing wounds getting your patients stuck on the road to recovery?
PICO◊ Single Use Negative Pressure
Wound Therapy, with AIRLOCK◊ Technology, helps to kick-start wound healing*1
, helping you to free your patients
from the burden of stalled wounds. Get back on track with PICO therapy.
The PICO◊
than standard dressings1†,2‡ providing resource savings.1†,2‡,3**
PICO sNPWT The dressing comes 90%
Over 94% healing rate
PICO sNPWT was shown to heal or initiate a healing
trajectory in 94.1% of wounds less than three months old.1‡
61% response rate Using PICO sNPWT resulted
in 61% of non-healing wounds being healed or on a projected healing trajectory within
2 weeks, compared to baseline1
in wound area versus tNPWT
Over 90% reduction In a study of VLUs and DFUs
over 12 weeks, the PICO system reduction wound area by 90.2% compared to 51% with tNPWT3§
Footnote: *compared to baseline trajectory, n=52 wounds; p<0.006; **n=161; Intention to treat analysis, at 12 weeks, combined population on a VLU and DFU study; p<0.001 for area and p=0.014 for depth; † p=0.001; 52 wounds (Dehisced surgical wound, VLU, Pressure ulcer, Other, Traumatic wound, Mixed aetiology, DFU, Not specified, Arterial leg ulcer); ‡ DFU cases, n=
4.Reduction per patient of 1-2 outpatient visits over 12-week treatment period and 1-3 home visits per week; §n=161; ITT analysis; Least-Squared (LS) mean.
References: 1: Dowsett C, Hampton K, Myers D, Styche T. Use of PICO to improve clinical and economic outcomes in hard-to-heal wounds. Wounds International. 2017;8(2):52-58. 2: Sharpe A, Myers D, Searle R. Using single use negative pressure wound therapy for patients with complicated diabetic foot ulcers: an economic perspective. Wounds UK. 2018;14:89-93. 3: Kirsner R, Dove C, Reyzelman A, Vayser D, Jaimes H. A prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial on the efcacy of a single-use negative pressure wound therapy system, compared to traditional negative pressure wound therapy in the treatment of chronic ulcers of the lower extremities. Wound Repair and Regeneration. May 2019. https://doi. org/10.1111/wrr.12727. ◊Trademark of Smith & Nephew. All Trademarks acknowledged ©February 2025 Smith+Nephew AWM-AWD-46294 | GMC1927.
Products may not be available in all markets because product availability is subject to the regulatory and/or medical practices in individual markets. Please contact your Smith+Nephew representative or distributor if you have questions about the availability of Smith+Nephew products in your area. For detailed product information, including indications for use, contraindications, precautions and warnings, please consult the product’s applicable Instructions for Use (IFU) prior to use.
System has been shown to be more efective and traditional NPWT3**
Vs baseline
whilst also Vs tNPWT
PPC035_Smith &
Nephew.indd 5
18/02/2025 15:55 27
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45
