Experience the difference with PICO◊ sNPWT

We often hear that NPWT systems are essentially the same…but are they? It’s time to correct the myths and misunderstandings so you and your patients can experience the difference.  
840x840-PX-PICO-7-Global.png

+ The truth:

PICO◊ sNPWT is different

With many NPWT options that look alike and appear to offer similar functionality, it might be easy to assume that they are the same. However, over different scenarios and applications, the PICO◊ Single Use Negative Pressure Wound Therapy System has been shown to be distinctly different in both clinical performance and design features. From wider zone pressure delivery* with AIRLOCK™ Technology1-3 to canister-free exudate management4 through a high evaporation dressing5, let’s examine the truth behind what NPWT should truly offer.

* Compared to tNPWT transmitting into foam filler area; as demonstrated in vitro

Evidence show effective outcomes at -80mmHg²⁻⁷,⁸

PICO◊ sNPWT has been shown to deliver effective outcomes in treatment of chronic wounds and in prevention of surgical site complications risks, at a nominal -80 mmHg pressure 2,3,7,8.
While -125 mmHg may appear stronger, NPWT studies6,7 show that clinical outcomes are equivalent to prevent surgical site infections6—or even superior in VLU and DFU* treatment 7—with PICO◊.
This is due to PICO◊’ sNPWT unique AIRLOCK◊ Technology, which allows the delivery of consistent negative pressure across the entire dressing2,6. It transmits negative pressure into both the wound and peri-wound area, not just into a localized foam filler zone like many other NPWT systems*2,1,3.
Experience the difference:
In closed incisions: Significantly reduce the odds of surgical site infections vs standard of care dressings**8.
 
*As demonstrated ex vivo
** p<0.001; meta-analysis of 19 studies (odds ration (OR): 0.37) ***n=161; ITT analysis; over 12 week study period  
GMC1919 PICO Not all NPWT is same - Myth pressure level icon-text.png

Smart Fluid Management With Evaporative dressing

While most NPWT systems rely on external canisters, the PICO ◊ sNPWT system uses an innovative evaporative dressing that can handle until 300ml per dressing* [1,2].

It combines a super absorbent core that retains 20% of wound fluid [1] and locks exudate away from the wound [3] with a high MVTR (Moisture Vapour Transmission Rate) top film that allows up to 80% of the fluid to evaporate [1,4] — ensuring a high level of fluid control without the need for a canister. In addition, PICO system minimizes the risk of maceration [6,7].

With no bulky canister to manage, PICO ◊ sNPWT is easy to use [8,9], less intrusive for patients, and frees healthcare professionals from constantly thinking about the canister in addition to dressing changes — helping to enhance both workflow efficiency and patient care* [7].

*In a study of VLU and DFU, compared to tNPWT; PICO = ~8.5 dressing changes per patient ; tNPWT = ~ 15.3 dressing changes per patient

Watch how PICO ◊ handles fluid — see the technology in action.
GMC1919 PICO Not all NPWT is same - Fluid management icon-text.png
The PICO◊ system consistently delivers NPWT (nominal -80mmHg) even without a complete seal formation*2,15. This has been assessed not only through benchtop testing but also in a clinical setting. A prospective, non-comparative, two centre clinical trial assessing PICO◊ device functionality and clinical acceptance showed the ability of the simplified single-use device to function continuously over the expected wear time12** . Clinical outcomes would not be achieved if PICO◊ sNPWT did not deliver consistent negative pressure.
*As demonstrated in benchtop testing
**n=20, mean study duration 10·7 days (range: 5–14 days), mean dressing wear time per individual patient of 4·6 days (range: 2–11)  
Download the evidence
GMC1919 PICO Not all NPWT is same - Myth pressure level icon-text.png

Backed by strong evidence

A literature search identified 316* clinical publications regarding PICO◊ sNPWT (166 unique studies)16.  

Try it with your patients and experience the difference in wound outcomes.  

Download the evidence compendium ​
GMC1919 PICO Not all NPWT is same - Same clinical outcomes icon-text.png

Only one NPWT system is recommended by NICE for high-risk patients at risk of SSI.¹⁷

Due to PICO◊ sNPWT’s wealth of robust clinical data demonstrating clinical efficacy and performance to reduce surgical site infections for high-risk patients, it is the only sNPWT system to get NICE recommendation17.
Follow the guidelines…and experience the difference.  
Download the evidence
GMC1919 PICO Not all NPWT is same - Myth NICE icon-text.png

A unique feature to promote patient comfort

If you think all sNPWT devices feature a soft port, you’d be mistaken. We specifically developed the Soft Port Technology flexible port and dressing design so PICO◊ sNPWT would help reduce the risk of pressure points which may contributes to patient comfort in wear…so patients can experience the difference.  
Learn more
GMC1919 PICO Not all NPWT is same - Soft port technology icon-text.png

Focus on the value of clinical outcomes

With increasingly tight budgets, it’s easy to focus on the price of solutions alone. However, when you consider the overall value and effectiveness of therapy, PICO◊ sNPWT can demonstrate a proven track record of efficiency and effectiveness; supported by robust clinical and economic evidence* over 10 years of experience8,18.
Ready to experience the difference PICO◊ can make on your budget ? Ask us about Business Impact Model to see the potential savings in action.
* Compared to tNPWT over a 12 week study period in patients treated for VLUs, n=60, US setting  
GMC1919-NON-ADVOCATES-6-COST-(£)V2.png

Share you insights

Wherever you are on your journey with sNPWT, with any device, we want your valuable feedback. Please take a moment to complete our quick survey.  
Share you insights
Take the Survey - Have your say on sNPWT.jpg

Related products

References
1.Smith & Nephew 2019.PICO Biomechanical Study. Internal Report. DS/19/211/R.
2.Casey C. Consistent delivery of therapeutic negative pressure levels by a single use negative pressure wound therapy system (sNPWT)* in a wound model. Paper presented at: EWMA; 2019; Gothenburg, Sweden. 3.Smith+Nephew 2021.PICO™ Pressure Mapping Study. Internal Report. DS/19/211/R - Part B.
4.Smith+Nephew November 2018.The Review Of Evidence Supporting The Use Of PICO In Wounds ≥2cm In Depth. Internal Report. EO.AWM.PCS230.001.v2.
5.Malmsjö M, Huddleston E, Martin R. Biological Effects of a Disposable, Canisterless Negative Pressure Wound Therapy System. ePlasty. 2014;14:1 – 15
6.Groenen H, Jalalzadeh H, Buis DR, et al. eClinicalMedicine (part of the Lancet group). 2023;62;102105
7.Kirsner R, Dove C, Reyzelman A, Vayser D, Jaimes H. A Prospective, Randomised, Controlled Clinical Trial on the Efficacy 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 Regen. 2019;27(5):519 - 529.
8.Saunders C, Nherera LM, Horner A, Trueman P. Single-Use negative-pressure wound therapy versus conventional dressings for closed surgical incisions: systematic literature review and meta- analysis. BJS Open. 2021;0(0):1 - 8
9.Smith+Nephew Data on file reference DS/15/014/R2– Calculation of the theoretical fluid management of the PICO dressings. S Daragh September 2015
10.Smith+Nephew July 2018.PICO 7Y Non-NPWT Wound Model Summary. Internal Report. DS.18.260.R.
11.Smith+Nephew 2018.Summary of rountine QA testing on MVP of PICO dressings. 2018. Internal Report. DS/18/153/R
12.Hudson DA, Adams KG, Van Huyssteen A, Martin R, Huddleston EM. Simplified negative pressure wound therapy: clinical evaluation of an ultraportable, nocanister system. Int Wound J. 2015;12(2):195-201
13.Tanaydin V, Beugels J, Andriessen A, Sawor JH, Van Der Hulst R. Randomized Controlled Study Comparing Disposable Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy with Standard Care in Bilateral Breast Reduction Mammoplasty Evaluating Surgical Site Complications and Scar Quality. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2018;42(4):927-935.
14.Hurd T, Trueman P, Rossington A. Use of a Portable, Single-use Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Device in Home Care Patients with Low to Moderately Exuding Wounds: A Case Series. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2014;60(3):30-36.
15.Smith+Nephew January 2019.Air Leak Tolerance Report: A comparison of PICO v2 (PICO 7 and PICO 14) Devices to PICO vl.6 (PlCO) Devices. Internal Report. RD/19/006.
16.Evidence analysis report; EA/AWM/PICO/030/v3
17.NICE MTG43. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/mtg43/resources/pico -negative-pressure-wound-dressings-for-closedsurgical-incisions-pdf-64372054098373/ [October 2024].
18.Smith+Nephew 2021.A Prospective, Randomized, Comparative Effectiveness Study of a Single-Use, Negative Pressure Wound Therapy System (PICO™) versus a Traditional Negative Pressure Wound Therapy System (tNPWT) in the Treatment of Lower Extremity Ulcers- Dressing Application. Internal Statement. EO.AWM.PCS261.004.v1.
19.Kirsner RS, Delhougne G, Searle R. A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing Single-use and Traditional Negative Pressure Wound Therapy to Treat Chronic Venous and Diabetic Foot Ulcers. Wound Manag & Prev. 2020;66(3):30-36.  

Title

Text

Explore