AIRLOCK technology
When applied to closed surgical incisions, AIRLOCK Technology facilitates the consistent delivery of NPWT. AIRLOCK Technology has been shown to retain its integrity and maintain NPWT even under compression.*20-22
CLOSED SURGICAL INCISION MANAGEMENT
PICO◊ Single Use Negative Pressure Wound Therapy System
Leave nothing to chance in the battle against surgical site complications (SSCs). Discover the powerful, evidence-based benefits of PICO sNPWT.
Leave nothing to chance
When examining the problem of surgical site complications (SSCs), such as surgical site infections (SSIs) and dehiscence, prevalence rates and costs to healthcare systems highlight potential shortfalls in conventional incision management solutions.
Current challenges are unlikely to change if left to chance, so discover the evidence-based case for using PICO sNPWT as an integral part of your standard care protocol.
Don’t let your patient become part of the statistics
Not every procedure will result in a SSC… but all SSCs will have an effect on resources, costs and patient wellbeing. Data from the US highlights the scale of the problem each year; reinforcing a need to reshape post-operative incision care. Flip the cards to reveal the problem.
Any procedure can result in a surgical site complication
Once SSCs develop, the costs, delays and impact on patients’ quality of life might be unavoidable. Go from reactive treatment to proactive prevention across a broad range of indications and leave nothing to chance with PICO sNPWT.
Any procedure can result in a surgical site complication
Once SSCs develop, the costs, delays and impact on patients’ quality of life might be unavoidable. Go from reactive treatment to proactive prevention across a broad range of indications and leave nothing to chance with PICO sNPWT.
Breast, plastic and cardiothoracic surgery
Abdominal surgery
Obstetrics and gynaecology
Vascular
Orthopaedics
Inside the PICO Dressing
PICO sNPWT was developed to be pocket-sized and convenient, without the need for an exudate canister, so patients have a greater sense of freedom12,13 while undergoing NPWT.
The PICO System’s mode of action
Reducing lateral tension
Sutures and closed incisions are subject to lateral tensile forces that might disrupt the wound or result in dehiscence. Application of AIRLOCK Technology and the consistent delivery of NPWT helps to substantially reduce lateral tension, shown in biomechanical testing to reduce lateral tension on an individual suture by 69%.34
PICO sNPWT pressure distribution
AIRLOCK Technology helps redistribute pressure and deliver effective NPWT across the entire dressing, ensuring treatment is delivered to a wider zone beyond the wound itself (demonstrated ex vivo).21,24
Fluid management
Due to the high rate of water vapour transmission in the dressing’s top film layer, up to 80% of wound exudate is allowed to evaporate while the remaining 20% is absorbed into the dressing’s super absorbent core.20,32
Reducing post-operative seroma
PICO sNPWT has been shown to help reduce the incidence of seroma (compared to standard dressings).35-40
AIRLOCK technology
When applied to closed surgical incisions, AIRLOCK Technology facilitates the consistent delivery of NPWT. AIRLOCK Technology has been shown to retain its integrity and maintain NPWT even under compression.*20-22
Reducing lateral tension
Sutures and closed incisions are subject to lateral tensile forces that might disrupt the wound or result in dehiscence. Application of AIRLOCK Technology and the consistent delivery of NPWT helps to substantially reduce lateral tension, shown in biomechanical testing to reduce lateral tension on an individual suture by 69%.34
PICO sNPWT pressure distribution
AIRLOCK Technology helps redistribute pressure and deliver effective NPWT across the entire dressing, ensuring treatment is delivered to a wider zone beyond the wound itself (demonstrated ex vivo).21,24
Fluid management
Due to the high rate of water vapour transmission in the dressing’s top film layer, up to 80% of wound exudate is allowed to evaporate while the remaining 20% is absorbed into the dressing’s super absorbent core.20,32
Reducing post-operative seroma
PICO sNPWT has been shown to help reduce the incidence of seroma (compared to standard dressings).35-40
Clinical evidence
As the burden of SSCs increases, clinical data continues to reinforce how using PICO sNPWT on suitable patients can have a profound influence on outcomes when compared to standard care.
Testimonials
How do patients feel about PICO sNPWT?
Laura understands the devastation of a surgical site complication after Caesarean section surgery, including the disruption to mother and baby bonding. Listen to Laura’s experience with PICO sNPWT as a powerful example how it helps protect time to bond.
Why are surgeons using PICO sNPWT?
Surgeons see how SSIs can affect their patients, so they understand the importance of identifying risk and targeting prevention. Listen to Mr Coulter outline the difference he’s seen since adopting single-use NPWT.
Explore expert-led learning modules on how to use PICO sNPWT to reduce surgical site complications
Learn more at Smith and Nephew Academy Online. Here you'll find education about how to prevent and treat surgical site complications across a range of surgical specialties.
Order numbers
| Dressing sizes | PICO 7 system | PICO 7 system | PICO 14 System | Multipack | PICO 7Y device |
| + 1 dressing | + 2 dressings | + 2 dressings | with 5 dressings | + 2 dressings | |
| Multisite small 15cm x 20cm | 66802010 | 66802000 | 66802040 | 66802020 | - |
| Multisite large 20cm x 25cm | 66802011 | 66802001 | 66802041 | 66802021 | 66802031 |
| 10cm x 20cm | 66802012 | 66802002 | 66802042 | 66802022 | - |
| 10cm x 30cm | 66802013 | 66802003 | 66802043 | 66802023 | - |
| 10cm x 40cm | 66802014 | 66802004 | 66802044 | 66802024 | - |
| 15cm x 15cm | 66802015 | 66802005 | 66802045 | 66802025 | - |
| 15cm x 20cm | 66802016 | 66802006 | 66802046 | 66802026 | - |
| 15cm x 30cm | 66802017 | 66802007 | 66802047 | 66802027 | - |
| 20cm x 20cm | 66802018 | 66802008 | 66802048 | 66802028 | - |
| 25cm x 25cm | 66802019 | 66802009 | 66802049 | 66802029 | - |
Related products
Disclaimers
* As demonstrated in benchtop testing.
**As demonstrated in vitro vs baseline; p<0.05.
***Compared to standard dressings; p=0.007. Pre-pregnancy BMI ≥35.
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.
Citations
1.Najjar PA, et al. Surg Clin N Am 2015;95(2):269-283. World Union of Wound Healing Societies (WUWHS). Consensus Document: Closed surgical incision management: Understanding the role of NPWT. https://woundsinternational.com/world-union-resources/closed-surgical-incision-managementunderstanding-the-role-of-npwt/.
2. Merkow, R, et al. JAMA, February 3, 2015, Volume 313, Number 5.;
3. Nussbaum SR, et al. An. Value Health. 2018 Jan;21(1):27-32.
4. Olsen et al. J Am Coll Surg. 2008 Sep;207(3):326-35.
5. Olsen MA, et al. Archives of Surgery. 2008 Jan 1;143(1):53-60.
6. Cotogni P, et al. J Crit Care Med 2015;4(4): 265-273.
7. Jenks PJ, et al. Journal of Hospital Infection, 2014; 86(1), pp.24-33.
8. Tanner J, et al. Journal of Hospital Infection. 2009 Jul 1;72(3):243–50.
9. Aicher B, et al. Journal of Vascular Nursing. 2017 Sep 1;35(3):146–56.
10. Gwilym BL, et al. European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery. 2021 Jan 7.
11. Smith+Nephew 2018. Internal Report. DS.18.260.R.
12. Gilchrist B, et al. Paper presented at: SWC; 2020; Virtual.
13. Hurd T, et al. Ostomy Wound Manage. 2014;60(3):30-36.
14. Smith+Nephew 2018. Internal Report. RD/18/137.
15. Smith+Nephew 2018. Internal Report. DS.18.066.R
16. Stryja J, et al. Prolekare. 2015;94(8):322 - 328.
17. Smith+Nephew 2015. Internal Report. ST865 CT09/02.
18. Hudson DA, et al. Int Wound J. 2015;12(2):195-201.
19. Payne C, et al. ePlasty. 2014:152-166.
20. Malmsjö M, et al. ePlasty. 2014;14:1 - 15.
21. 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.
22. Smith+Nephew 2019. Internal Report. RD/19/006.
23. Smith+Nephew 2020. Internal Report. 2001002.
24. Smith+Nephew 2019. Internal Report. DS/19/211/R.
25. Smith+Nephew 2021. Internal Report. DS/19/211/R - Part B.
26. Ma Z, et al. Exp Ther Med. 2016;11(4):1307-1317.
27. Xia CY, et al. Mol Med Rep. 2014;9(5):1749-1754.
28. Kirsner R, et al. Wound Repair Regen. 2019;27(5):519 - 529.
29. Smith+Nephew 2018. Internal Report. EO.AWM.PCS230.001.v2.
30. Smith+Nephew 2018. Internal Report. DS/18/153/R.
31. Smith+Nephew 2018. Internal Report. DS/18/219/R V2.
32. Mcmanus H, et al. Paper presented at: EWMA; 2018; Krakow, Poland.
33. Smith+Nephew 2024. Internal Report. CSD.AWM.24.065.
34. Loveluck J, et al. ePlasty. 2016;16:183-195.
35. Fleming CA, et al. J Hosp Infect. 2018;99(1):70-80.
36. Gillespie BM, et al. Surg Innov. 2015;22(5):488–495.
37. Galiano RD, et al. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018;6(1):e1560.
38. Pellino G, et al. Surg Innov. 2014;21(2):204-212.
39. Pellino G, et al. Int J Surg. 2014;12 Suppl 2:S64-S68.
40. Selvaggi F, et al. Surg Technol Int. 2014;24:83-;89.
41. Saunders C, et al. BJS Open. 2021;0(0):1 - 8.
42. Groenen H, et al. eClinical Medicine (part of The Lancet group). 2023;62:102105.
43. Hyldig N, et al. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2018;0(0).
44. Hyldig N, et al. BJOG. 2019;126(5):619-627.
45. Karlakki SL, et al. Bone Joint Res. 2016;5(8):328-337.
46. Nherera LM, et al. Wound Repair Regen. 2017;25(3):474-482.
47. Holt R, et al. British Journal of Hospital Medicine. 2015;76(4).
48. O’Leary DP, et al. Ann Surg. 2017;265(6):1082-1086
49. Tabley A, et al. Ann Thorac Surg. 2020.
50. Fleming CA, et al. J Hosp Infect. 2018; 99:75-80.
51. Smith+Nephew 2016. Internal report. DS.16.179.R.
52. Smith+Nephew 2016. Internal report. DS.16.174.R.
53. Smith+Nephew2008. Internal report. DS/08/062/R1.
54. Smith+Nephew2009. Internal report. DS/08/078/R2.
55. Smith+Nephew2008. Internal report. DS/08/062/R2.
56. Smith+Nephew2017. Internal report. DS/16/363/R2.