Reducing the burden of pressure ulcers.
It’s possible.
Shape the future of wound care, explore the latest evidence and discover a new way to reinforce pressure ulcer prevention.
Help us shape future strategies
Find out what your peers said in a recent survey.
Your expertise and insights are crucial in understanding current practices and challenges surrounding pressure ulcer management.
Explore our latest clinical evidence
Using foam dressings in pressure ulcer management
Could foam dressing technology help reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers as part of a prevention strategy?1 Evidence has highlighted the potential impact of using of ALLEVYN◊ LIFE Dressings:
- Shown to redistributed pressure over a significantly larger area than other traditional dressings*2
- 71% reduction in sacral pressure ulcer incidence, shown in elderly hip fracture patients**3
- Can stay in place for up to 7 days (5 days in the sacrum area)
Reducing the burden of pressure injuries. It’s possible.
Using NPWT in the treatment of pressure ulcers
Sometimes, pressure ulcers require a more powerful intervention (particularly for non-healing wounds). With the OneNPWT clinical pathway, discover simplified decision-making for our RENASYS◊ Negative Pressure Wound Therapy System and PICO◊ Single Use Negative Pressure Wound Therapy System.
- Clinically effective in the treatment of pressure ulcers4-8
- Soft Port Technology is designed to reduce the risk of pressure points
- Facilitates decision-making on the use of traditional or portable, single-use systems
Simplifying negative pressure wound therapy. It’s possible.
Medical education
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 or submit a question.
*As demonstrated in laboratory testing; p<0.001; compared to Mepilex™ Border and Optifoam™ Gentle; average and peak pressure forces.
**When used as part of a comprehensive prevention program and when compared to standard care alone; p=0.001.
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.
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.
All trademarks acknowledged. ©2023 Smith+Nephew. All rights reserved.
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
Title
Text