Negative Pressure Wound Therapy

Unlock the Potential of NPWT

At Smith & Nephew our innovative products and services have been designed for people to allow more patients to benefit from the proven outcomes of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT).

Studies show NPWT may help promote healing:

• Compared with conventional wound care dressings¹
• To enable patients to get on with their lives²
• That helps reduce the human and economic cost of wounds

With a NPWT system designed to suit every patient, every clinician and every budget, there’s a Smith & Nephew solution that’s right for you.

References

¹ Vuerstaek JD et al., State-of-the-art treatment of chronic leg ulcers: A randomized controlled trial comparing vacuum-assisted closure (V.A.CTM.) with modern wound dressings. J Vasc Surg. Nov 2006;44(5):1029-1037.

² Deroo K. Outcomes of a portable single use Negative Pressure Wound Therapy trial. Poster presented at the WUWHS Congress, Yokohama, September 2012

³ Krug E et al., Evidence-based recommendations for the use of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in traumatic wounds and reconstructive surgery: steps towards an international consensus. Injury. February 2011;42 Suppl1:S1-12

⁴ Apelqvist J, Armstrong DG, Lavery LA, Boulton AJ. Am J Surg. Jun 2008;195(6):782-788. Epub 2008 Mar 26. Economic analysis based on Armstrong et al clinical study

⁵ Birke-Sorensen H 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. Sep 2011;64:S1-S16

⁶ Lavery LA et al., A comparison of diabetic foot ulcer outcomes using Negative Pressure Wound Therapy versus historical standard of care. Int Wound J. Jun 2007;4(2):103-113

⁷ Hurd T. Outcomes of a portable single use negative pressure device trial. Symposium, EWMA conference, Vienna, Austria. May 2012

⁸ Llanos S et al., Effectiveness of negative pressure closure in the integration of split thickness skin grafts: a randomized, double-masked, controlled trial. Ann Surg. Nov 2006;244(5):700-705

⁹ SRS/CT09/02. A prospective, open, non-comparative, multi-centre study to evaluate the functionality and dressing performance of a new Negative Pressure Enhanced Dressing (NPED) in acute wounds. Dharma H. March 2011

¹⁰ Hurd T, Chadwick P, Cote J, et al., Impact of gauze based NPWT on the patient and nursing experience in the treatment of challenging wounds. Int. Wound J. Dec 2010;7(6):448-455

¹¹ Canonico S et al., Therapeutic possibilities of portable NPWT. Initial multi-disciplinary observation with the negative pressure therapy device. Acta Vulnol. Jun 2012;10:57-66

^TM Trademark of Smith & Nephew
^TM All trademarks acknowledged

Discover What NPWT Could Do for You

Over the last 15 years, a growing body of evidence has encouraged more and more healthcare professionals to explore NPWT.

Now, with over 1000 peer reviewed publications describing its clinical efficacy3,safety and cost effectiveness4, you can be confident that NPWT will deliver optimal healing for you and your patients.

Multiple Modes of Action⁵

NPWT can help you manage your treatment goals, for example:

• May promote wound healing^1,6
• Reduced number of dressing changes may help conserve resources^4,7
• Management of closed surgical incision lines⁹*
• Provide temporary cover prior to definitive closure³
• Concurrent rehabilitation^8,9
• Help improve patient wellbeing^7,8,9,10

*PICO™ single use NPWT is indicated for use in the management of closed surgical incisions.

References

¹ Vuerstaek JD et al., State-of-the-art treatment of chronic leg ulcers: A randomized controlled trial comparing vacuum-assisted closure (V.A.CTM.) with modern wound dressings. J Vasc Surg. Nov 2006;44(5):1029-1037.

² Deroo K. Outcomes of a portable single use Negative Pressure Wound Therapy trial. Poster presented at the WUWHS Congress, Yokohama, September 2012

³ Krug E et al., Evidence-based recommendations for the use of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in traumatic wounds and reconstructive surgery: steps towards an international consensus. Injury. February 2011;42 Suppl1:S1-12

⁴ Apelqvist J, Armstrong DG, Lavery LA, Boulton AJ. Am J Surg. Jun 2008;195(6):782-788. Epub 2008 Mar 26. Economic analysis based on Armstrong et al clinical study

⁵ Birke-Sorensen H 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. Sep 2011;64:S1-S16

⁶ Lavery LA et al., A comparison of diabetic foot ulcer outcomes using Negative Pressure Wound Therapy versus historical standard of care. Int Wound J. Jun 2007;4(2):103-113

⁷ Hurd T. Outcomes of a portable single use negative pressure device trial. Symposium, EWMA conference, Vienna, Austria. May 2012

⁸ Llanos S et al., Effectiveness of negative pressure closure in the integration of split thickness skin grafts: a randomized, double-masked, controlled trial. Ann Surg. Nov 2006;244(5):700-705

⁹ SRS/CT09/02. A prospective, open, non-comparative, multi-centre study to evaluate the functionality and dressing performance of a new Negative Pressure Enhanced Dressing (NPED) in acute wounds. Dharma H. March 2011

¹⁰ Hurd T, Chadwick P, Cote J, et al., Impact of gauze based NPWT on the patient and nursing experience in the treatment of challenging wounds. Int. Wound J. Dec 2010;7(6):448-455

¹¹ Canonico S et al., Therapeutic possibilities of portable NPWT. Initial multi-disciplinary observation with the negative pressure therapy device. Acta Vulnol. Jun 2012;10:57-66

^TM Trademark of Smith & Nephew
^TM All trademarks acknowledged

The Simplicity of PICO

An innovative addition to our portfolio, PICO is a revolutionary single-use, canister-free system. As familiar and easy to use as an advanced wound dressing, PICO provides an active intervention to help promote optimal healing for early discharge and enhanced outcomes in complex cases.^2,9

PICO has been developed to address the issues that matter to you and your patients:

For Healthcare Professionals

• Efficacy – PICO supports rapid, effective healing^2,9
• Time – helps to optimise application time¹¹

For Budget Holders

• Budget – PICO can save money compared to advanced wound dressings by extending the interval between changes⁷
• Administration – Single Use PICO cuts the administrative burden compared to traditional systems

For Patients

• Mobility – the comfortable^2,9 canister-free system supports your patients’ lifestyle
• Privacy – pocket-sized PICO can be hidden from view to support patient dignity

Visit the PICO Product Pages for more Information

References

¹ Vuerstaek JD et al., State-of-the-art treatment of chronic leg ulcers: A randomized controlled trial comparing vacuum-assisted closure (V.A.CTM.) with modern wound dressings. J Vasc Surg. Nov 2006;44(5):1029-1037.

² Deroo K. Outcomes of a portable single use Negative Pressure Wound Therapy trial. Poster presented at the WUWHS Congress, Yokohama, September 2012

³ Krug E et al., Evidence-based recommendations for the use of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in traumatic wounds and reconstructive surgery: steps towards an international consensus. Injury. February 2011;42 Suppl1:S1-12

⁴ Apelqvist J, Armstrong DG, Lavery LA, Boulton AJ. Am J Surg. Jun 2008;195(6):782-788. Epub 2008 Mar 26. Economic analysis based on Armstrong et al clinical study

⁵ Birke-Sorensen H 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. Sep 2011;64:S1-S16

⁶ Lavery LA et al., A comparison of diabetic foot ulcer outcomes using Negative Pressure Wound Therapy versus historical standard of care. Int Wound J. Jun 2007;4(2):103-113

⁷ Hurd T. Outcomes of a portable single use negative pressure device trial. Symposium, EWMA conference, Vienna, Austria. May 2012

⁸ Llanos S et al., Effectiveness of negative pressure closure in the integration of split thickness skin grafts: a randomized, double-masked, controlled trial. Ann Surg. Nov 2006;244(5):700-705

⁹ SRS/CT09/02. A prospective, open, non-comparative, multi-centre study to evaluate the functionality and dressing performance of a new Negative Pressure Enhanced Dressing (NPED) in acute wounds. Dharma H. March 2011

¹⁰ Hurd T, Chadwick P, Cote J, et al., Impact of gauze based NPWT on the patient and nursing experience in the treatment of challenging wounds. Int. Wound J. Dec 2010;7(6):448-455

¹¹ Canonico S et al., Therapeutic possibilities of portable NPWT. Initial multi-disciplinary observation with the negative pressure therapy device. Acta Vulnol. Jun 2012;10:57-66

^TM Trademark of Smith & Nephew
^TM All trademarks acknowledged

The Flexibility of RENASYS

We know that every wound, every clinician and every budget is different. That’s why the RENASYS range can be tailored to meet your needs, giving you the flexibility to select the NPWT that’s right for you and your patients.

For Healthcare Professionals

• Flexibility – the comprehensive RENASYS foam and gauze dressing range enables you to treat the most challenging wounds
• Power and capacity – the RENASYS EZ PLUS device delivers extra capacity for the management of large highly exuding wounds
• Ease of use – every RENASYS device is designed for intuitive operation

For Budget Holders

• Budget – RENASYS offers flexible and tailored business packages to enable you to choose the package that’s right for your facility
• Administration – streamlined logistics simplify the day to day management of NPWT For Patients
• Mobility – portable RENASYS GO is designed for daily living
•  Comfort – the unique RENASYS Soft Port provides a soft, cushioned channel that enhances patient comfort during therapy

Visit the RENASYS Product Pages for more Information

References

¹ Vuerstaek JD et al., State-of-the-art treatment of chronic leg ulcers: A randomized controlled trial comparing vacuum-assisted closure (V.A.CTM.) with modern wound dressings. J Vasc Surg. Nov 2006;44(5):1029-1037.

² Deroo K. Outcomes of a portable single use Negative Pressure Wound Therapy trial. Poster presented at the WUWHS Congress, Yokohama, September 2012

³ Krug E et al., Evidence-based recommendations for the use of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in traumatic wounds and reconstructive surgery: steps towards an international consensus. Injury. February 2011;42 Suppl1:S1-12

⁴ Apelqvist J, Armstrong DG, Lavery LA, Boulton AJ. Am J Surg. Jun 2008;195(6):782-788. Epub 2008 Mar 26. Economic analysis based on Armstrong et al clinical study

⁵ Birke-Sorensen H 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. Sep 2011;64:S1-S16

⁶ Lavery LA et al., A comparison of diabetic foot ulcer outcomes using Negative Pressure Wound Therapy versus historical standard of care. Int Wound J. Jun 2007;4(2):103-113

⁷ Hurd T. Outcomes of a portable single use negative pressure device trial. Symposium, EWMA conference, Vienna, Austria. May 2012

⁸ Llanos S et al., Effectiveness of negative pressure closure in the integration of split thickness skin grafts: a randomized, double-masked, controlled trial. Ann Surg. Nov 2006;244(5):700-705

⁹ SRS/CT09/02. A prospective, open, non-comparative, multi-centre study to evaluate the functionality and dressing performance of a new Negative Pressure Enhanced Dressing (NPED) in acute wounds. Dharma H. March 2011

¹⁰ Hurd T, Chadwick P, Cote J, et al., Impact of gauze based NPWT on the patient and nursing experience in the treatment of challenging wounds. Int. Wound J. Dec 2010;7(6):448-455

¹¹ Canonico S et al., Therapeutic possibilities of portable NPWT. Initial multi-disciplinary observation with the negative pressure therapy device. Acta Vulnol. Jun 2012;10:57-66

^TM Trademark of Smith & Nephew
^TM All trademarks acknowledged