Global

‡ In these countries please contact our distributor

PICO

PICO Single Use Negative Pressure Wound Therapy

PICO Single Use Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (sNPWT) technology is completely portable1 and clinically effective in the treatment of surgical2-22, chronic23-29 and acute11,20,24,30 wounds.

 

PICO’s unique features: Pioneering by design.

 

Stabilised healing process

Our unique AIRLOCKTechnology layer distributes pressure evenly and consistently for up to 7 days15, with optimal fluid management to help reduce the potential for maceration*15

 

Reduced damage and pain on removal

Gentle silicone adhesive* helps protect the skin and may contribute towards improved scar formation3,21,31-32 whilst treating the underlying zone of injury. Helps to minimize pain on the peri wound area on dressing removal15,20,25,30-33.


Shown in-vitro to reduce the lateral tension across a closed surgical incision34.

 

Enhanced patient safety

Softport allows PICO to be used on weight-bearing areas, and with compression therapy35-39.

 

Bacterial protection

In vitro testing demonstrated that 99.9% of bacteria was locked away from the wound when absorbed into the AIRLOCK Technology layer**40

 

Try PICO 7 now.

 

Single-use, portable negative pressure wound therapy.

See how PICO Single Use Negative Pressure Wound Therapy works.

Watch the video

 

Fewer wound complications4-6


Through early or prophylactic use, PICO is clinically effective to both prevent infection2,7 and promote healing1, 28 when compared with standard care across a number of specialties and patient profiles.

  • A meta-analysis demonstrated a 58% reduction in SSIs***2.
  • Incidences of dehiscence reduced by 75% in a breast cancer study****8.
  • Seroma following abdominal surgery for Crohn’s disease up to 82% lower, compared to standard care*****9.
  • Significantly improved surgical scar appearance in mammoplasty******21.

 

Multiple mechanisms of action for optimal performance6

 

PICO is setting new standards in clinical efficacy2, backed by extensive and robust clinical research, helping you get CLOSER TO ZERO delay in wound healing, and CLOSER TO ZERO surgical site complications.

 

For any specific patient requirements, or for help identifying the right dressing choice, please contact us.

 

For other patient requirements:

ALLEVYN

 

ACTICOAT
IODOSORB MolecuLightTM i:X
RENASYS    
*In reference to ALLEVYN Gentle Border silicone contact layer found in PICO.
**In vitro tests over 4 and 7 days replicating low and moderately exuding wounds.
***Versus care with standard dressings (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.
****Reduction in wound breakdown: 24 patients; PICO 4.2%; standard dressings 16.7%. Number of patients too small to test for statistical significance.
*****Study relates to Crohn’s disease patients. Compared to care with standard dressings (reduction in seroma); 50-patient study. PICO 2 patients (8%); standard care 11 patients (44%); p=0.008.
******Scar appearance: significantly better scar quality at 42 days and 90 days assessment; p<0.001.
 

Anatomy of a chronic wound

i) Malmsjö M. et al. Biological effects of a disposable, canisterless Negative Pressure Wound Therapy system. Eplasty 2014; 14:e15.
ii) Data on File DS/18/015/R. Summary Wound Model Report for Opal PICO 7. January 2018
iii) Data on file reference 1102010 – Bacterial Barrier Testing (wet-wet) of PICO dressing with a 7 day test duration against S.marcescens; Helen Lumb, February 2011.
iv) Karlakki S, Brem M, Giannini S, Khanduka V, Stannard J and Martin R (2013) Negative pressure wound therapy management of the surgical incision in orthopaedic surgery: A review of evidence and mechanisms for an emerging indication. Bone and Joint research, [online] 2(12), pp. 276-284. Available at: http://bjr.boneandjoint.org.uk/content/2/276.long [Accessed 4 Oct, 2017].
 

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) 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.
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) 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.
5) 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.
6) Karlakki SL 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.
7) 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.
8) Holt R and Murphy J. PICO incision closure in oncoplastic breast surgery: a case series. Br J Hosp Med 2015; 76(4):217-223.
9) 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.
10) Pellino G et al. Prophylactic Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in colorectal surgery. Effects on surgical site events: current status and call to action, Updates Surg 2015; DOI 10.10007/s 13304-015-0298-z.
11) Canonico S et al. Therapeutic possibilities of portable NPWT. Initial multidisciplinary observation with the negative pressure therapy device. Acta Vulnol 2012; 10: 57-66.
12) 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.
13) 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.
14) Bullough, L. et al: Reducing C-Section Wound Complications. The Clinical Services Journal (2015) April: 2-6.
15) Data on file. DS/17/253/R version2. Project Opal PICO 7 system stability testing, initial time point. November 2017
16) Pellino G. et al, Effects of a new pocket device for negative pressure wound therapy  on surgical wounds of patients affected with Crohn’s disease: A pilot trial; Surgical Innovation, Jul 2014;21 (2):204-212
17) Bullough L. et al; Changing woundcare protocols to reduce post-operative caesarean section infection and readmission. Wounds UK 2014, Vol 10, No.1, 72-76
18) Pellino G. et al; Preventative NPWT over closed incisions in general surgery. Does age matter? International Journal of Surgery 2014; 12 Supplement 2: S64-8
19) Adogwa, O. et al. 2014: Negative pressure wound therapy reduces incidence of post-operative wound infection and dehiscence after long-segment thoracolumbar spinal fusion: A single institutional experience. The Spine Journal 14(12):2911-17
20) Payne C, Edwards D: Application of the single-use negative pressure wound therapy device (PICO) on a heterogeneous group of surgical and traumatic wounds: Eplasty Apr 2014, 14: e20.
21) Tanaydin V, et al. Randomized controlled study comparing disposable negative-pressure wound therapy with standard care in bilateral breast reduction mammoplasty evaluating surgical site complications and scar quality. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2018. doi. 10.1007/s00266-018-1095-0
22) Karlakki, S., Brem, M., Giannini, S., Khanduka, V., Stannard, J. and Martin, R. (2013) Negative pressure wound therapy for management of the surgical incision in orthopaedic surgery: A review of evidence and mechanisms for an emerging indication. Bone and Joint Research, [online] 2(12), pp.276-284. Available at: http://bjr.boneandjoint.org.uk/content/2/276.long [Accessed 4 Oct. 2017].
23) Schwartz J.A., et al, 2015: Single-Use Negative Pressure Wound Therapy for the treatment of chronic lower leg wounds. Journal of Wound Care 24: S4-9.
24) 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 supplement, 60: 30-36. Issue 3, 2014.
25) Stryja J et al, 2015: Farmakoekonomika Ambulantní Terapie RanKontrolovaným Podtlakem (Cost-Effectiveness of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in Outpatient Setting). Rozhl Chir 94(8): 322–28.
26) Dunn R et al. 2011. Factors associated with positive outcomes in 131 patients treated with gauze-based negative pressure wound therapy Int J Surg. 9(3):258-262.
27) Young, S.R. ; Hampton, S; Martin, R; Non-invasive assessment of negative pressure wound therapy using high frequency diagnostic ultrasound: odema reduction and new tissue accumulation; Int Wound J. 2013;10(4):383-388.
28) Key Opinions in Medicine, Challenging Wounds (2017), Volume 1, Issue 1.
29) 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.
30) 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.
31) Sharp, E; Single use NPWT for the treatment of complex orthopaedic surgical and trauma wounds; Journal of Woundcare Cases supplement 2013, Vol 22, No 10, S5-9.
32) Hudson, D; Adams, K; Van Huyssteen, A; Martin, R; Huddleston, E; Simplified negative pressure wound therapy: clinical evaluation of an ultraportable, no canister system; International Wound Journal 2015, 12: 195-201.
33) Malmsjö M et al. Biological effects of a disposable, canisterless Negative Pressure Wound Therapy system. Eplasty 2014; 14:e15.
34) Loveluck J et al. Biomechanical modelling of forces applied to closed incisions during single-use negative pressure wound therapy. Eplasty 2016; 16e20.
35) Molnar J.A. et al; Management of an acute thermal injury with subatmospheric pressure; J Burns Wounds, March 2005; 4:e5
36) Data on file report DS/14/065/R. Comparison of pressure transmission through port area of current PICO and PICO Soft Port designs, April 2014.
37) Rafiq, G; A prospective, open, non-comparative, multicentre study to evaluate the functionality and dressing performance of a new single use negative pressure wound therapy dressing (PICO) in shallow chronic wounds, CT10/01, Feb 2012.
38) Wang et al., Topical negative pressure and compression therapy in the management of venous leg ulcers: a pilot study. Wound Practice and Research. 2017;25(1): 36-40
39) Dowsett et al 2013. Venous leg ulcer management: single use negative pressure wound therapy. Clinical Focus. Wound Care. S16-S25. March 2013
40) 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.

Helping you get
CLOSER TO ZERO
surgical site complications

Find out how PICO◊  can help

More

Contact us about PICO

PICODiscover more about PICO

Get in Touch