‡ In these countries please contact our distributor


Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT), also known as assisted wound vacuum closure, can be complicated to manage, adding to costs and staff workloads. These inefficiencies may result in delayed patient discharge and increased pressure on healthcare resources. International expert guidelines recommend a simplified decision- making framework to help inform the appropriate use of NPWT devices1,2

Achieving clinical outcomes while tackling costs and inefficiencies

NPWT has well-documented clinical benefits across acute and chronic wound indications,3-5 yet there may be obstacles to clinician confidence and timely therapy initiation.1,2

  • NPWT decision-making can be complex, which may impact clinician confidence and wound outcomes2,6
  • 38% of patients discontinue their therapy sooner than clinically recommended, many of whom due to the impact on their quality of life7
  • Logistics and paperwork relating to tNPWT can create additional work, potentially delaying patient discharge and increasing overall costs of care2,8
  • Costs are increasing quicker than budgets, and complex inventory management can be a drain on resources

An international expert consensus

Experts recommend implementation of an evidence-based framework to simplify and optimise NPWT provision, and to help guide the selection of appropriate NPWT systems.

Prompt selection of a single-use NPWT system, such as PICO sNPWT, for clinically eligible wounds can help to:

  • Facilitate prompt patient discharge1
  • Improve patient satisfaction1
  • Alleviate logistical workloads associated with tNPWT fleet management1
  • Reduce overall cost of care1

Unlocking the full potential of NPWT

Reduce the number of NPWT options and simplify your inventory to help optimise the clinical benefits of NPWT using our proprietary traditional and single-use technologies. Clinical studies have demonstrated:


  • Improved patient comfort and tolerability with the RENASYS System’s unique Soft Port Technology*9
  • The RENASYS TOUCH System was found to be comfortable by over 90% of patients4
  • The PICO System helps to promote healing progression and shorten time to healing**5,10
  • PICO sNPWT was shown to improve to the area, depth and volume of lower extremity ulcer wounds***11
  • 97.5% of patients report being satisfied or pleased with PICO sNPWT treatment****12

See the evidence

International Consensus Panel Recommendations for the Optimization of Traditional and Single-use Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in the Treatment of Acute and Chronic Wounds

Unlocking the full potential of NPWT

New NPWT guidelines presented at the 2021 Wounds International conference

2021 International expert panel recommendations to optimize NPWT

Evidence in focus: PICO sNPWT was estimated to be highly cost effective and improve clinical outcomes compared with tNPWT in patients with VLUs and DFUs

New NPWT pathway and expert guidelines can improve patient and financial outcomes

A new clinical decision making tool to help manage wounds with RENASYS tNPWT and PICO sNPWT


*n=96; compared to alternative ports.

**For healing progression compared to baseline trajectory and for healing compared with predictions for standard care; n=52 wounds. On responding to stalled chronic wounds of 44 weeks mean duration, the PICO system healed 56% of wounds an average of 10 weeks earlier than predicted with standard wound care dressings; n=9.

***Compared to traditional NPWT over a 12-week treatment period for VLUs and DFUs; n=161; ITT analysis.



1.  Hurd, T. et al. International Consensus Panel Recommendations for the Optimization of Traditional and Single-Use Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in the Treatment of Acute and Chronic Wounds. Wounds 2021;33(suppl 2):S1– S11.
2.  Kirsner R, et al. Assessing the Need for Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Utilization Guidelines: An Overview of the Challenges With Providing Optimal Care. Wounds 2020;32(12).
3.  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.
4.  Forlee M, van Zyl L, Louw H, Nel J, Fourie N, Hartley R. A randomised controlled trial to compare the clinical efficacy and acceptability of adjustable intermittent and continuous Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) in a new portable NPWT system. Poster presented at: EWMA;9-11 May, 2018; Krakow, Poland.
5.  Dowsett C, Hampton K, Myers D, Styche T. Use of PICO to improve clinical and economic outcomes in hard-to-heal wounds. Wounds International. 2017;8(2):52-58.
6.  Cray A. Negative pressure wound therapy and nurse education. Br J Nurs. 2017 Aug 10;26(15):S6-S18.
7.  Janssen AHJ, Wegdam JA, de Vries Reilingh TS, Vermeulen H, Eskes AM. Which determinants are consideredto beimportant for adherence to Negative Pressure Wound Therapy: A multimethods study. J Tissue Viability. 2021 Feb 6. [Epub ahead of print].
8.  Kantar Health market research report, November 2018.
9.  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. In. Acta Vulnologica. Vol 142016:24-39.
10.  Hampton J. Providing cost-effective treatment of hard-to-heal wounds in the community through use of NPWT. Community Wound Care. 2015:S14-S20.
11.  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.
12.  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.