November 20 - 2025
SPUD Day: United to Bust Pressure Ulcers.
One team. One mission. Zero pressure.
Join us on SPUD Day, November 20, to support everyday heroes in their fight against pressure ulcers.
Together, we'll boost energy, share best practices, and celebrate the impact of teamwork in transforming patient outcomes.
Pressure Ulcers
Prevent Early. Treat Powerfully.
Pressure ulcers remain a persistent and largely preventable challenge, affecting millions of patients and contributing to serious complications such as extended hospital stays and increased healthcare costs.1,2
At Smith+Nephew, we believe in early prevention and powerful treatment to improve outcomes and to reduce the burden of pressure ulcers.
Prevent Early
Bony prominences like heels, the sacrum and elbows can be protected by the prophylactic use of silicone multi-layer dressings.3 ALLEVYN◊ LIFE Dressing helps protect at-risk individuals from the onset of pressure injuries 4,5* and significantly reduced the incidence of sacral pressure ulcers - by 71% in elderly patients with hip fracture.4**
Treat Powerfully
The RENASYS◊ EDGE system delivers Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT). Treating complex pressure ulcers with advanced therapies like NPWT can help to achieve good clinical 6 -10 and patient11 outcomes while being cost-effective11++. NPWT has been shown to promote granulation tissue formation, protect the wound from the outside environment and promote moisture balance within the wound bed12-16.
Together, they enable a seamless, effective wound care journey.
Pressure Ulcers
Recap of our symposia
Pressure Ulcer Busters - Breaking Down Barriers and Myths
EPUAP Symposium Recap: Myths Officially BUSTED!
We Did It!
Our Pressure Ulcer Busters symposium delivered game-changing insights that can transform how healthcare teams approach wound prevention and care. Here's what our expert speakers revealed:
MYTH 1 Busted:
"No Time for Prevention"
Zena Moore (Royal College of Surgeons Ireland) proved that getting prevention right the first time actually saves precious moments for patient care. Attendees learned how solid shared care foundations early in the patient journey make a massive difference for everyone involved.
MYTH 2 Busted:
"All Pressure Ulcers Are Avoidable"
Dr. Lee Ruotsi (Holland Hospital Wound Center) brought real patient stories to life, revealing the complex clinical realities behind pressure ulcer development. Through compelling case studies, attendees discovered how to distinguish between preventable injuries and those occurring despite comprehensive, appropriate care.
MYTH 3 Busted:
"Only Nurses Need to Understand Pressure Ulcers"
Dr. Leena Berg (Plastic Surgery & Wound Care Specialist) demonstrated why pressure ulcer prevention and treatment is truly a shared clinical responsibility. And how the entire care team is crucial in the provision of positive patient outcomes.
Discover the most common myths surrounding pressure ulcer care
Every day, clinicians like you make critical decisions in the prevention and management of pressure ulcers. But even with the best intentions, outdated beliefs and misconceptions can persist—impacting care outcomes.
Thank you to all of you who shared their insights and experiences to help us identify the most common myths surrounding pressure ulcer care.
Your voice is contributing to shaping better education and more effective clinical support.
Using foam dressings in pressure ulcer prevention
Multi-layer silicone foam dressings are a key part of pressure ulcer prevention and help to manage microclimate, redistribute pressure and reduce friction and shear.3 ALLEVYN◊ LIFE is a 5-layer foam dressing with a distinct mode of action helping to reduce pressure ulcer incidence:17*
•ALLEVYN LIFE Dressing absorbs and dissipates mechanical energy through both material shear and layer-to-layer frictional sliding within the dressing.18***
•ALLEVYN LIFE Dressing redistributes pressure over a significantly larger area than other traditional foam dressings19†
•A health economic study shows that ALLEVYN◊ LIFE Dressings with standard preventative care was estimated to reduce treatment costs between 37-69% per patient.20‡
Unlock Your Potential with S+N Academy Online
Your Gateway to Expert Knowledge, Anytime, Anywhere
Join a vibrant community of learners and professionals at S+N Academy Online — our educational hub designed to empower, inspire, and elevate your skills.
Whether you're looking to deepen your expertise or explore new frontiers, our interactive courses and expert-led sessions are just a click away.
Discover a new era of innovation with RENASYS EDGE NPWT
RENASYS EDGE NPWT system: the latest evolution in NPWT features an intuitive user interface for enhanced simplicity.21 The durable pump includes self-test functionality, designed to help ensure confidence with device performance.22
Contact us
Complete the form to subscribe to our updates. With your insights and expertise, help us shape what’s possible in wound care, use the comment box to share your thoughts, request more information.
*When used as part of a comprehensive prevention program and when compared to standard care alone
**p<0.001; when used as part of a comprehensive prevention program and when compared to standard care alone
***As demonstrated in vitro
† p<0.001; as demonstrated in laboratory testing. Traditional foams defined as Biatain™ Silicone,Tegaderm™ Silicone Foam Border, Mepilex™ Border Flex/Comfort, Mepilex Border, Optifoam™ Gentle, Optifoam Gentle LQ and AQUACEL™ Foam
‡Compared with using standard preventive care alone; n=359 Compared with using standard preventive care alone; n=359
++Compared to Hospital in-patient managed NPWT; n=29
References:
1. Ebi WE, Hirko GF, Mijena DA. Nurse’s knowledge to pressure ulcer prevention in publica hospitals in Wollega: a cross-sectional study design. BMC Nurs 18, 20 (2019).
2. Wassel CL, Delhougne G, Gayle JA, Dreyfus J, Larson B. Risk of readmissions, mortality, and hospital-acquired conditions across hospital-acquired pressure injury (HAPI) stages in a US National Hospital Discharge database. Int Wound J. 2020;17(6):1924–1934.
3. European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel and Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance. Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers/Injuries: Clinical PracticeGuideline. The International Guideline. Emily Haesler (Ed.). EPUAP/NPIAP/PPPIA: 2019.
4. Forni C, D’alessandro F, Gallerani P, et al. Effectiveness of using a new polyurethane foam multi-layer dressing in the sacral area to prevent the onset of pressure ulcer in the elderly with hip fractures: A pragmatic randomised controlled trial. International wound journal. 2018;15(3):1 - 8.
5. Austin M. Implementation of a Medical Device Related Pressure Injury Prevention Bundle: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Paper presented at: SAWC; 2019.
6. Hurd T, Rossington A, Trueman P, Smith J. A Retrospective Comparison of the Performance of Two Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Systems in the Management of Wounds of Mixed Etiology. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). 2017;6(1):33-37.
7. Carnali M, Ronchi R, Finocchi L, Spuri Capesciotti S, Paggi B. Retrospective study on the use of negative pressure wound therapy in the treatment of pilonidal cysts (sinus pilonidalis) operated on using an open technique or complicated by dehiscence of the surgery site through sepsis. Acta Vulnologica 2016;14(1):24 - 40.
8. Rahmanian-Schwarz A, Willkomm LM, Gonser P, Hirt B, Schaller HE. A novel option in negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) for chronic and acute wound care. Burns. 2012;38(4):573-577.
9. Smith+Nephew 2018. Results Sheet for the RENASYS TOUCH PCS Outcomes in Flaps. Internal Report. ST924A.
10. Hurd T, Chadwick P, Cote J, Cockwill J, Mole TR, Smith JM. Impact of gauze-based NPWT on the patient and nursing experience in the treatment of challenging wounds. Int Wound J. 2010;7(6):448 - 455.
11. Rossato M, Ryrie M, Robinson M, Searle R, Murdoch J. Use of NPWT as part of a Hospital @ Home wound management service. JCN Wound Care. 2021;35(4):50 - 57.
12. Birke-Sorensen H, Malmsjo M, Rome P, et al. Evidence-based recommendations for negative pressure wound therapy: Treatment variables (pressure levels, wound filler and contact layer) - Steps towards an international consensus. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2011;64(1):S1 - S16.
13. Young SR, Hampton S, Martin R. Non-invasive assessment of negative pressure wound therapy using high frequency diagnostic ultrasound: oedema reduction and new tissue accumulation. Int Wound J. 2013;10(4):383-388.
14. Dunn R, Hurd T, Chadwick P, et al. Factors associated with positive outcomes in 131 patients treated with gauze-based negative pressure wound therapy. Int J Surg. 2011;9(3):258 - 262.
15. Apelqvist J, Willy C, Fagerdahl AM, et al. EWMA Document: Negative Pressure Wound Therapy - Overview, Challanges and Perspectives. J Wound Care. 2017;26(3 (Supplement)):S1 - S155.
16. Smith+Nephew 2009. A prospective, open labelled, multicentre evaluation of the use of EZCare in the management of acute and chronic wounds. Internal Report. SR/CIME/010/012.
17. Marché C, Creehan S, Gefen A. The frictional energy absorber effectiveness and its impact on the pressure ulcer prevention performance of multilayer dressings. International Wound Journal. 2024;21(4):e14871. doi:10.1111/iwj.14871
18. Smith+Nephew 2023. The ALLEVYN™ LIFE Foam Dressing as an energy absorber. Internal Report. CSD.AWM.23.033.
19. Smith+Nephew 2021.Pressure Mapping. Benchtop Testing Report. CSD.AWM.21.006
20. Forni C, Searle R. A multilayer polyurethane foam dressing for pressure ulcer prevention in older hip fracture patients: an economic evaluation. J Wound Care. 2020;29(2):120 - 127.
21. Smith and Nephew 2022. RENASYS EDGE System Human Factors Summative Report Summary. Internal Report. CSD.AWM.22.071.
22. Smith+Nephew 2022. Summary of RENASYS EDGE pump mechanical and electronic reliability testing. Internal Report. CSD.AWM.22.06
Citations
*When used as part of a comprehensive prevention program and when compared to standard care alone
**p<0.001; when used as part of a comprehensive prevention program and when compared to standard care alone
***As demonstrated in vitro
† p<0.001; as demonstrated in laboratory testing. Traditional foams defined as Biatain™ Silicone,Tegaderm™ Silicone Foam Border, Mepilex™ Border Flex/Comfort, Mepilex Border, Optifoam™ Gentle, Optifoam Gentle LQ and AQUACEL™ Foam
‡Compared with using standard preventive care alone; n=359Compared with using standard preventive care alone; n=359
++Compared to Hospital in-patient managed NPWT; n=29
References:
1. Ebi WE, Hirko GF, Mijena DA. Nurse’s knowledge to pressure ulcer prevention in publica hospitals in Wollega: a cross-sectional study design. BMC Nurs 18, 20 (2019).
2. Wassel CL, Delhougne G, Gayle JA, Dreyfus J, Larson B. Risk of readmissions, mortality, and hospital-acquired conditions across hospital-acquired pressure injury (HAPI) stages in a US National Hospital Discharge database. Int Wound J. 2020;17(6):1924–1934.
3. European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel and Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance. Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers/Injuries: Clinical PracticeGuideline. The International Guideline. Emily Haesler (Ed.). EPUAP/NPIAP/PPPIA: 2019.
4. Forni C, D’alessandro F, Gallerani P, et al. Effectiveness of using a new polyurethane foam multi-layer dressing in the sacral area to prevent the onset of pressure ulcer in the elderly with hip fractures: A pragmatic randomised controlled trial. International wound journal. 2018;15(3):1 - 8.
5. Austin M. Implementation of a Medical Device Related Pressure Injury Prevention Bundle: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Paper presented at: SAWC; 2019.
6. Hurd T, Rossington A, Trueman P, Smith J. A Retrospective Comparison of the Performance of Two Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Systems in the Management of Wounds of Mixed Etiology. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). 2017;6(1):33-37.
7. Carnali M, Ronchi R, Finocchi L, SpuriCapesciotti S, Paggi B. Retrospective study on the use of negative pressure wound therapy in the treatment of pilonidal cysts (sinus pilonidalis) operated on using an open technique or complicated by dehiscence of the surgery site through sepsis. Acta Vulnologica 2016;14(1):24 - 40.
8. Rahmanian-Schwarz A, Willkomm LM, Gonser P, Hirt B, Schaller HE. A novel option in negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) for chronic and acute wound care. Burns. 2012;38(4):573-577.
9. Smith+Nephew 2018. Results Sheet for the RENASYS TOUCH PCS Outcomes in Flaps. Internal Report. ST924A.
10. Hurd T, Chadwick P, Cote J, Cockwill J, Mole TR, Smith JM. Impact of gauze-based NPWT on the patient and nursing experience in the treatment of challenging wounds. Int Wound J. 2010;7(6):448 - 455.
11. Rossato M, Ryrie M, Robinson M, Searle R, Murdoch J. Use of NPWT as part of a Hospital @ Home wound management service. JCN Wound Care. 2021;35(4):50 - 57.
12. Birke-Sorensen H, Malmsjo M, Rome P, et al. Evidence-based recommendations for negative pressure wound therapy: Treatment variables (pressure levels, wound filler and contact layer) - Steps towards an international consensus. J Plast ReconstrAesthet Surg. 2011;64(1):S1 - S16.
13. Young SR, Hampton S, Martin R. Non-invasive assessment of negative pressure wound therapy using high frequency diagnostic ultrasound: oedema reduction and new tissue accumulation. Int Wound J. 2013;10(4):383-388.
14. Dunn R, Hurd T, Chadwick P, et al. Factors associated with positive outcomes in 131 patients treated with gauze-based negative pressure wound therapy. Int J Surg. 2011;9(3):258 - 262.
15. Apelqvist J, Willy C, Fagerdahl AM, et al. EWMA Document: Negative Pressure Wound Therapy - Overview, Challanges and Perspectives. J Wound Care. 2017;26(3 (Supplement)):S1 - S155.
16. Smith+Nephew 2009. A prospective, open labelled, multicentre evaluation of the use of EZCare in the management of acute and chronic wounds. Internal Report. SR/CIME/010/012.
17. Marché C, Creehan S, Gefen A. The frictional energy absorber effectiveness and its impact on the pressure ulcer prevention performance of multilayer dressings. International Wound Journal. 2024;21(4):e14871. doi:10.1111/iwj.14871
18. Smith+Nephew 2023. The ALLEVYN™ LIFE Foam Dressing as an energy absorber. Internal Report. CSD.AWM.23.033.
19. Smith+Nephew 2021.Pressure Mapping. Benchtop Testing Report. CSD.AWM.21.006
20. Forni C, Searle R. A multilayer polyurethane foam dressing for pressure ulcer prevention in older hip fracture patients: an economic evaluation. J Wound Care. 2020;29(2):120 - 127.
21. Smith and Nephew 2022. RENASYS EDGE System Human Factors Summative Report Summary. Internal Report. CSD.AWM.22.071.
22. Smith+Nephew 2022. Summary of RENASYS EDGE pump mechanical and electronic reliability testing. Internal Report. CSD.AWM.22.06
**p<0.001; when used as part of a comprehensive prevention program and when compared to standard care alone
***As demonstrated in vitro
† p<0.001; as demonstrated in laboratory testing. Traditional foams defined as Biatain™ Silicone,Tegaderm™ Silicone Foam Border, Mepilex™ Border Flex/Comfort, Mepilex Border, Optifoam™ Gentle, Optifoam Gentle LQ and AQUACEL™ Foam
‡Compared with using standard preventive care alone; n=359Compared with using standard preventive care alone; n=359
++Compared to Hospital in-patient managed NPWT; n=29
References:
1. Ebi WE, Hirko GF, Mijena DA. Nurse’s knowledge to pressure ulcer prevention in publica hospitals in Wollega: a cross-sectional study design. BMC Nurs 18, 20 (2019).
2. Wassel CL, Delhougne G, Gayle JA, Dreyfus J, Larson B. Risk of readmissions, mortality, and hospital-acquired conditions across hospital-acquired pressure injury (HAPI) stages in a US National Hospital Discharge database. Int Wound J. 2020;17(6):1924–1934.
3. European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel and Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance. Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers/Injuries: Clinical PracticeGuideline. The International Guideline. Emily Haesler (Ed.). EPUAP/NPIAP/PPPIA: 2019.
4. Forni C, D’alessandro F, Gallerani P, et al. Effectiveness of using a new polyurethane foam multi-layer dressing in the sacral area to prevent the onset of pressure ulcer in the elderly with hip fractures: A pragmatic randomised controlled trial. International wound journal. 2018;15(3):1 - 8.
5. Austin M. Implementation of a Medical Device Related Pressure Injury Prevention Bundle: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Paper presented at: SAWC; 2019.
6. Hurd T, Rossington A, Trueman P, Smith J. A Retrospective Comparison of the Performance of Two Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Systems in the Management of Wounds of Mixed Etiology. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). 2017;6(1):33-37.
7. Carnali M, Ronchi R, Finocchi L, SpuriCapesciotti S, Paggi B. Retrospective study on the use of negative pressure wound therapy in the treatment of pilonidal cysts (sinus pilonidalis) operated on using an open technique or complicated by dehiscence of the surgery site through sepsis. Acta Vulnologica 2016;14(1):24 - 40.
8. Rahmanian-Schwarz A, Willkomm LM, Gonser P, Hirt B, Schaller HE. A novel option in negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) for chronic and acute wound care. Burns. 2012;38(4):573-577.
9. Smith+Nephew 2018. Results Sheet for the RENASYS TOUCH PCS Outcomes in Flaps. Internal Report. ST924A.
10. Hurd T, Chadwick P, Cote J, Cockwill J, Mole TR, Smith JM. Impact of gauze-based NPWT on the patient and nursing experience in the treatment of challenging wounds. Int Wound J. 2010;7(6):448 - 455.
11. Rossato M, Ryrie M, Robinson M, Searle R, Murdoch J. Use of NPWT as part of a Hospital @ Home wound management service. JCN Wound Care. 2021;35(4):50 - 57.
12. Birke-Sorensen H, Malmsjo M, Rome P, et al. Evidence-based recommendations for negative pressure wound therapy: Treatment variables (pressure levels, wound filler and contact layer) - Steps towards an international consensus. J Plast ReconstrAesthet Surg. 2011;64(1):S1 - S16.
13. Young SR, Hampton S, Martin R. Non-invasive assessment of negative pressure wound therapy using high frequency diagnostic ultrasound: oedema reduction and new tissue accumulation. Int Wound J. 2013;10(4):383-388.
14. Dunn R, Hurd T, Chadwick P, et al. Factors associated with positive outcomes in 131 patients treated with gauze-based negative pressure wound therapy. Int J Surg. 2011;9(3):258 - 262.
15. Apelqvist J, Willy C, Fagerdahl AM, et al. EWMA Document: Negative Pressure Wound Therapy - Overview, Challanges and Perspectives. J Wound Care. 2017;26(3 (Supplement)):S1 - S155.
16. Smith+Nephew 2009. A prospective, open labelled, multicentre evaluation of the use of EZCare in the management of acute and chronic wounds. Internal Report. SR/CIME/010/012.
17. Marché C, Creehan S, Gefen A. The frictional energy absorber effectiveness and its impact on the pressure ulcer prevention performance of multilayer dressings. International Wound Journal. 2024;21(4):e14871. doi:10.1111/iwj.14871
18. Smith+Nephew 2023. The ALLEVYN™ LIFE Foam Dressing as an energy absorber. Internal Report. CSD.AWM.23.033.
19. Smith+Nephew 2021.Pressure Mapping. Benchtop Testing Report. CSD.AWM.21.006
20. Forni C, Searle R. A multilayer polyurethane foam dressing for pressure ulcer prevention in older hip fracture patients: an economic evaluation. J Wound Care. 2020;29(2):120 - 127.
21. Smith and Nephew 2022. RENASYS EDGE System Human Factors Summative Report Summary. Internal Report. CSD.AWM.22.071.
22. Smith+Nephew 2022. Summary of RENASYS EDGE pump mechanical and electronic reliability testing. Internal Report. CSD.AWM.22.06