Potential to save time and money^1-3

With fewer wound complications^4-8

PICO Single Use Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (sNPWT) has demonstrated success in faster wound healing and prevention of surgical site complications across a range of settings and surgical specialties^1-2,4,8, with demonstrated potential cost and time efficiencies when compared with standard care^1-4.

To save nursing time, this changes everything

PICO technology can be used undisturbed for up to 7 days, optimising dressing change frequency to potentially save valuable nursing time*1-4. A significant 40% reduction in dressing changes, demonstrated on hip arthroplasty patients**7. An estimated saving of 120 nursing days over 6 months, when compared with standard care*1. Read our meta-analysis summary which demostrates how our PICO system significantly reduced SSIs by 58%***4.

To save money, this changes everything

With demonstrable reductions in wound infections and complications^{4-5, 7, 9-11}, PICO dressings provided significant cost savings when compared with standard care^1-4.

An estimated saving of over £1000 per patient, and  over £7000 per  high-risk patient undergoing primary hip and knee arthroplasty, when compared with standard care**3. A chance to dramatically reduce LOS and its associated costs, with an average of 8 fewer days in hospital****8. Improved efficiencies and optimised dressing changes can potentially reduce the number of clinical visits1-2.

Contact us now to try PICO sNPWT and discover how it can help your staff and patients.

* Prospective cohort study of 52 wounds; PICO healed wounds n=14.
** 220-patient randomised controlled trial. Reduction in mean number of dressing changes: PICO 2.5; control group 4.2 p=0.002
*** Meta-analysis included 10 RCT and 6 observational studies. Reduction in SSI (16 studies included): 1863 patients (2202 incisions); PICO 5.2%; control group 12.5%; p<0.0001. Mean reduction in hospital length of stay (8 studies included): 0.47 days; p<0.0001.
****50 patient study; length of stay reduced: PICO 6.1 days; control group 14.7 days; p<0.019

References

1) Dowsett C. et al. Use of PICO to improve clinical and economic outcomes in hard-to-heal wounds. Wounds Int. 2017; 8(2):52-58.
2) Hampton J. Providing cost-effective treatment of hard-to-heal wounds in the community through use of NPWT. Br J Community Nurs. 2015; 20:S14–S20.
3) Nherera L.M. et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of single-use negative pressure wound therapy dressings (sNPWT) to reduce surgical site complications (SSC) in routine primary hip and knee replacements. Wound Repair & Regeneration 2017; 25(3):474-482. DOI:10.1111/wrr.12530
4) 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 2018; 18 (7):810-819. DOI: 10.1089/sur.2017.156.
5) Witt-Majchrzak et al, Preliminary outcome of treatment of post-operative primarily closed sternotomy wounds treated using negative pressure wound therapy. Polish Journal of Surgery (2014) Vol 86(Issue 10): 456-465.
6) Rodden D. et al. NPWT: Incision management in high risk cardiothoracic patients reducing surgical site infection and length of stay, Poster presented at STSC Conference 2015.
7) Karlakki S.L. et al. Incisional negative pressure wound therapy dressings (iNPWTd) in routine primary hip and knee arthroplasties: A randomised controlled trial. Bone & Joint Research (2016) Vol 5 (Issue 8): pp 328-337 doi:10.1302/2046-3758.58.BJR-2016-0022.R1.
8) O’Leary D.P. et al, Prophylactic negative pressure dressing use in closed laparotomy wounds following abdominal operations. A randomised, controlled, open-label trial: The P.I.C.O. trial. Ann Surg. 2017; Jun 265(6):1082-1086.
9) Galiano R.D., Hudson D., Shin J., et al. Incisional negative pressure wound therapy for prevention of wound healing complications following reduction mammoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2018;6:e1560; doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000001560; Published online 12 January 2018.
10) Holt R. and Murphy J. PICO incision closure in oncoplastic breast surgery: a case series. Br J Hosp Med 2015; 76(4):217-223.
11) Selvaggi F et al., New Advances in Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) for Surgical Wounds of Patients Affected with Crohn’s Disease. Surgical Technology International XXIV; 83- 89.

PICO is backed by extensive clinical evidence

For the latest product developments and clinical evidence on PICO, join our Education & Evidence site.
 

Try PICO 7 now and discover how it can help your staff and patients.

i) Meta-analysis included 10 RCT & 6 observational studies. Hospital length of stay based on 8 studies. Reduction in SSI: 1863 patients (2202 incisions); PICO 5.2%; control group 12.5%; p<0.0001. Mean reduction in hospital length of stay 0.47 days; p<0.0001.
ii) Reduction in surgical site complications: 220 patient study, PICO 2.0%; control group 8.4%. p=0.06.
iii) Reduction in dehiscence: 200 patients; PICO 32 patients (16%); standard care 52 patients (26%); p<0.001.
iv) Reduced SSIs: 50 patient study; PICO 2 patients (8.3%); control group 8 patients (32.0%); p=0.043.
v) Reduction in wound complications: 80 patient study, PICO 3 patients (7.5%); standard care 10 (25%) p<0.034.
vi) Analysis of 1644 patients, 239 patients with BMI >35, treated with PICO. Previous SSI rates of 12% reduced to 3.6% for BMI<35, and to 0.4% for patients with BMI >35.
vii) Meta-analysis of RCTs of NPWT and standard dressings. !0 studies met the inclusive criteria, with 1311 incisions and 1089 patients. NPWT was associated with a significant reduction in wound infection and seroma formation compared to standard care.
viii) Reduction in wound breakdown: 24 patients; PICO 4.2%; standard dressings 16.7%. Number of patients too small to test for statistical significance.
ix) Calculations based on a 220-patient randomised controlled trial.
x) Reduction in seroma: 50 patient study. PICO 2 patients (8%); standard care 11 patients (44%) p=0.008.
xi) Retrospective comparative study: 74 patients total ankle arthroplasty. 8-fold relative reduction of wound healing problems to control group, from 24% to 3%. Odds ratio 0.10 (95% cl, 0.001-0.50, p=0.004).
xii) The force on an individual suture reduced to 43% of the force without negative pressure (from 1.31 to 0.56 N) at -40nnHg and to 31% (from 1.31 to 0.40 N) at -80mmHg.
xiii) RCT: 20 patients, surgical stabilisation of spinal fracture by internal fixation, std dressing vs PICO. Wound care time (p<0.0005) and wounds care material (p=0.0376) higher in control.

References

1) 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, pp 810-819.
2) Karlakki S.L. et al. Incisional negative pressure wound therapy dressings (iNPWTd) in routine primary hip and knee arthroplasties: A randomised controlled trial. Bone & Joint Research (2016) Vol 5 (Issue 8): pp 328-337 doi:10.1302/2046-3758.58.BJR-2016-0022.R1.
3) Galiano R.D., Hudson D., Shin J., et al. Incisional negative pressure wound therapy for prevention of wound healing complications following reduction mammoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2018;6:e1560; doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000001560; Published online 12 January 2018.
4) O’Leary D.P. et al, Prophylactic negative pressure dressing use in closed laparotomy wounds following abdominal operations. A randomised, controlled, open-label trial: The P.I.C.O. trial. Ann Surg. 2017; Jun 265(6):1082-1086.
5) Witt-Majchrzak et al, Preliminary outcome of treatment of post-operative primarily closed sternotomy wounds treated using negative pressure wound therapy. Polish Journal of Surgery (2014) Vol 86(Issue 10): 456-465.
6) World Union of Wound Healing Societies (WUWHS). Consensus document. Closed surgical incision management: understanding the role of NPWT. Wounds Int, 2016.
7) Bullough,L. et al. Reducing C-section wound complications. The Clinical Services Journal (2015) April: 2-6.
8) Hyldig, N. et al. Meta-analysis of Negative-Pressure Wound Therapy for Closed Surgical Incisions. British Journal of Surgery (2016) Vol 103 (issue 5): 477-486.
9) Holt R. and Murphy J. PICO incision closure in oncoplastic breast surgery: a case series. Br J Hosp Med 2015; 76(4):217-223.
10) Nherera L.M. et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of single-use negative pressure wound therapy dressings (sNPWT) to reduce surgical site complications (SSC) in routine primary hip and knee replacements. Wound Repair & Regeneration 2017; 25(3):474-482. DOI:10.1111/wrr.12530
11) Selvaggi F. et al., New Advances in Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) for Surgical Wounds of Patients Affected with Crohn’s Disease. Surgical Technology International XXIV; 83- 89.
12) Matsumoto, T. and Parekh S.G. Use of negative pressure wound therapy on closed surgical incision after total ankle arthroplasty. Foot & Ankle International (2015) Vol 36 (Issue 7): 787-794.
13) Loveluck J. et al. Biomechanical modelling of forces applied to closed incisions during single-use negative pressure wound therapy. Eplasty 2016; 16e20.
14) Nordmeyer M. et al. Negative pressure wound therapy for seroma prevention and surgical incision treatment in spinal fracture care. Int Wound Journal 2015; DOI: 10.111/iwj.12436.
 

Improved comfort and confidence for patients^1-2

PICO has multiple mechanisms of action that contribute to effective wound healing and positive outcomes for your patients³

PICO scores highly in patient satisfaction^4-5*

92% of patients’ experience was reported by clinicians as ‘good’ or ‘excellent’1 99.7% reported no discomfort during application*6 98.5% report no pain during wear*6

Watch this short video on an individual patient experience with PICO Single Use Negative Pressure Wound Therapy. Helping you get CLOSER TO ZERO^◊ delay in wound healing.

For further information, please visit our full collection of clinical evidence on our Education & Evidence site.

Contact us with any individual patient experiences, comments or feedback.

For other patient requirements:

	ALLEVYN◊		ACTICOAT◊
	IODOSORB◊		MolecuLightTM i:X
	RENASYS◊

* Prospective cohort study of 52 wounds

References

1) Dowsett C. et al. Use of PICO to improve clinical and economic outcomes in hard-to-heal wounds. Wounds Int. 2017; 8(2):52-58. A prospective cohort study of 52 wounds.
2) Rossington, A; A prospective, open, non-comparative, multicentre study to evaluate the functionality and dressing performance of a new negative pressure enhanced dressing (NPED) in acute wounds, CT09/02, May 2015.
3) Karlakki S.L. et al. Incisional negative pressure wound therapy dressings (iNPWTd) in routine primary hip and knee arthroplasties: A randomised controlled trial. Bone & Joint Research (2016) Vol 5 (Issue 8): pp 328-337 doi:10.1302/2046-3758.58.BJR-2016-0022.R1.
4) Hurd T. et al. A multicentre in-market evaluation of ALLEVYN Gentle Border, Wounds UK 2009; 5(3) 32-44.
5) 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 Management, March 2014, 60: 30-36.
6) Hurd T. et al; Clinical performance of PICO single use, disposable Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in wounds of mixed aetiology: A case series. Wounds UK, 2012.