‡ In these countries please contact our distributor

PICO for VLUs and DFUs

New clinical evidence demonstrates PICO system’s performance on diabetic foot and venous leg ulcers1

A recent multisite RCT compared our PICO Single Use Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (sNPWT) System to traditional NPWT (tNPWT) for the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) and venous leg ulcers (VLUs) over a 12-week period.

Aiming to redefine standard of care for wound closure and patient satisfaction1.

Our PICO sNPWT System demonstrated, over 12 weeks from baseline:

  A 73.1% reduction in wound area, compared to 31.3% in the tNPWT group (n=161, ITT)(i)1
  A 48.1% reduction in wound depth, compared to 12.7% in the tNPWT group (n=161 ITT)(i)1

Conclusion: PICO sNPWT demonstrated superior wound closure rates for DFUs and VLUs, combined, over 12 weeks compared to tNPWT.

View the full study here


Potential to improve patient satisfaction1

In this study, our PICO sNPWT System was rated higher by patients for comfort, mobility and sleep impact, compared with tNPWT(iv)1.


The ability to change economic outcomes using sNPWT2

Based on a recent cost-analysis model, using sNPWT instead of tNPWT could result in:


This suggests that using PICO sNPWT for DFUs and VLUs combined may provide estimated overall cost savings of up to 70.9%, and improve wound closure rates, when compared with tNPWT. Policy makers may have opportunities to reduce economic burden, whilst simultaneously improving patient outcomes(ii, iii)2.

Why settle for tNPWT on DFUs and VLUs when, according to this study, you may achieve superior results with our PICO sNPWT System?

View full study

Arrange for a Smith & Nephew representative to contact you to discuss how our PICO sNPWT System could help your staff and patients.

PICO sNPWT  - designed to be different

Pioneering technology found only in our PICO sNPWT System has demonstrated clinical efficacy for chronic wounds and closed surgical incisions1,3.

  • AIRLOCK Technology delivers evenly distributed negative pressure across the wound, wound margin, and peri-wound area, for up to 7 days of uninterrupted use, depending on exudate levels4.
  • The dressing’s silicone adhesive helps to minimize trauma and pain to the peri-wound area when the dressing is removed(iv)5.
  • Optimal fluid management to reduce  the risk of maceration(vii)5.
  • Up to 99.9% of bacteria is locked away from the wound once absorbed into the dressing7.


Don’t forget to follow us on social media for regular updates.


In the original randomized controlled trial, confirmed closure results were statistically significant for DFUs alone, and DFUs and VLUs combined 1
Consideration: filler utilization was not assessed during this study.

PICO is indicated for patients who would benefit from a suction device (negative pressure wound therapy) as it may promote wound healing via removal of low to moderate levels of exudates and infectious materials.

For detailed product information, including indications for use, contraindications, effects, precautions and warnings, please consult the product’s Instructions for Use (IFU) prior to use.

Smith & Nephew does not provide medical advice. Information presented is not, and is not intended to serve as, medical advice.


i) 161-intention-to-treat (ITT) patient multisite RCT over 18 centers. 80 patients using sNPWT, 81 patients using tNPWT.
i)ii)  161-ITT patient multisite RCT over 18 centers. 80 patients using sNPWT, 81 patients using tNPWT. Overall satisfaction p=0.006, comfort p<0.001, mobility p<0.001, sleep impact p=0.017.
ii)iii) 161-ITT patient multisite RCT over 18 centers. 2-state Markov model with 26-week time horizon and 1-week cycle length.
iii)iv) Pre-clinical study.



1) Kirsner R, et al. Randomized controlled trial on the efficacy and acceptance of a single-use negative pressure wound therapy system versus traditional negative pressure wound therapy in the treatment of lower limb chronic ulcers (VLU and DFU). Poster presented at Wild on Wounds National Wound Conference. September 12–15, 2018. Poster 18.
2) Searle R. The cost-effectiveness of single-use negative pressure wound therapy (sNPWT) compared to traditional negative pressure wound therapy (tNPWT) for the treatment of chronic lower extremity ulcers. Poster presented at Wild on Wounds National Wound Conference. September 12–15, 2018. Poster 27.
3) Strugala V and Martin R. Meta-analysis of comparative trials evaluating a prophylactic single-use negative pressure wound therapy system for the prevention of surgical site complications. Surgical Infections Vol 18 Number 07 (2017). DOI: 10.1089/sur.2017.156. 810-819.
4) Data on file. DS/17/253/R version2. Project Opal PICO 7 system stability testing, initial time point. November 2017.
5) Loveluck J et al. Biomechanical modelling of forces applied to closed incision during single-use negative pressure wound therapy. Eplasty 2016; 16e20.
6) Malmsjö M et al. Biological effects of a disposable, canisterless Negative Pressure Wound Therapy system. Eplasty 2014; 14:e15.
7) Data on file report 1712012. The retention of P.aeruginosa and S.aureus bacteria within PICO dressings after 72 hours under NPWT in a dynamic model. December 2017.

Find out what's possible with PICO

Learn more