PICO◊ 14 Single Use Negative Pressure Wound Therapy System

Designed to treat closed surgical incisions and hard-to-heal wounds with an enhanced pump facilitating use for up to 14 days with less user intervention.*1-3 It is increasingly used prophylactically on at-risk patients undergoing complex or high-consequence surgery

Powerful results in complex wounds

Featuring a proprietary AIRLOCK◊ Technology dressing with Soft Port and integrated filter, PICO 14 sNPWT is indicated for:

  • Large wounds - shown to help the contraction of large wounds,** such as pressure ulcers (PUs), venous leg ulcers (VLUs) and diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs), while helping to stimulate the formation of granulation tissue3-10
  • Surgical incisions - shown to reduce lateral tension***11 and may help to reduce oedema12-14 - while promoting lymphatic drainage****15 - with a gentle silicone helping to minimise trauma and pain in the peri-wound area on dressing removal.6-18
PICO-Orthopaedics-Global-HERO-840x840-PX.png

Product features

Application

Evidence and case studies

Related technologies

Medical Education

No results.

Disclaimer

*Compared to the PICO 7 System.

**Wounds greater than 2cm must use a wound filler alongside PICO sNPWT. Usage time and user intervention is in comparison with previous versions.

***As demonstrated in biomechanical modelling.

****As demonstrated in vivo.

*****As demonstrated in benchtop testing.

Citations
  1. Smith+Nephew 2018. Internal Report. RD/18/132.
  2. Smith+Nephew 2018. Internal report EO AWM. PCS230.001 v2.
  3. Smith+Nephew 2019. Internal report. RD/19/084.
  4. Kirsner R, et al. Wound Repair and Regeneration. 2019;27(5):519 - 529.
  5. Hurd T, et al. Paper presented at: Symposium on Advanced Wound Care/Wound Healing Society Meeting; 2020; Abu Dhabi.
  6. Smith+Nephew 2018. Internal Report. EO.AWM.PCS230.001.v2.
  7. Smith+Nephew 2018. Internal Report. RD/18/089 V2.
  8. Smith+Nephew 2018. Internal Report. RD/18/132.
  9. Brownhill VR, et al. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). 2020;0(0):1 - 12.
  10. Schwartz JA, et al. J Wound Care. 2015;24(2).
  11. Loveluck J, et al. ePlasty. 2016;16:183-195.
  12. Birke-Sorensen H, et al. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2011;64 Suppl:S1-16.
  13. Kamolz LP, et al. Burns. 2004;30(3):253-258.
  14. Molnar JA, et al. J Burns Wounds. 2005;4:83-92.
  15. Kilpadi DV, et al. Wound Repair Regen. 2011;19(5):588-596.
  16. Payne C, et al. ePlasty. 2014:152-166.
  17. Stryja J, et al. Prolekare. 2015;94(8):322 - 328.
  18. Smith+Nephew 2015. Internal Report. ST865 CT09/02.
  19. Smith+Nephew 2018. Internal Report. RD/18/131.
  20. Gilchrist B, et al. Paper presented at: SAWC; 2020; Virtual.
  21. Smith+Nephew 2020. Internal Report. 2001002.
  22. Smith+Nephew 2018. Internal Report. DS.18.066.R.
  23. Sharpe A, et al. Wounds UK. 2018;14:89-93.
  24. Myers D, et al. Paper presented at: EWMA; 2018; Krakow.
  25. Smith+Nephew 2018. Internal Report. RD/18/136.
  26. Casey C. Paper presented at: EWMA; 2019; Gothenburg, Sweden.
  27. Karlakki SL, et al. Bone Joint Res. 2016;5(8):328-337.
  28. Dingemans SA, et al. Int Orthop. 2018;42(4):747-753.
  29. Clark JM, et al. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019;48(1):21.

Title

Text

Explore