Smith+Nephew is sharing encouraging findings from a newly published, first-of-its-kind comparative study¹ of single-use negative pressure wound therapy (sNPWT) devices in orthopedic and cardiovascular surgery.

Analyzing real-world data from more than 22,000 patients in the Premier PINC AI Healthcare Database, the analysis reveals that prophylactic use of PICO sNPWT (-80 mmHg) significantly reduces wound dehiscence risk, hospital length of stay (LoS), and overall healthcare costs compared to the Prevena -125 mmHg sNPWT device.

An estimated 313 million surgical procedures are performed worldwide each year, with the number continuing to rise.² In the United States, surgical site infections (SSIs) occur in approximately 2% to 4% of patients undergoing inpatient procedures.^2,3

In relation to Prevena sNPWT (-125mmHg), use of PICO sNPWT (-80mmHg) resulted in the following key study findings:

Cardiovascular Surgery (5,000-plus patients)

• A 57.8% relative reduction in wound dehiscence risk (P<0.01)
• A 9.1% relative reduction in LoS (6.33 days vs. 6.86 days) (P<0.0001)
• A 10.34% relative reduction in admission-related costs and 13% lower expenditures within three months post-surgery (P<0.0001)

Orthopedic Surgery (17,000+ patients)

• A 63.9% relative reduction in wound dehiscence incidence (p<0.05)
• A 29.7% relative reduction in LoS (2.43 days vs. 3.10 days) (p<0.0001)
• A 21.95% relative reduction in mean index admission cost and a 21% reduction at 30- and 90-day post-surgery (p<0.001)

Substantial Cost Savings With PICO sNPWT

Substantial cost savings are associated with prolonged hospital stays, increased readmissions, and higher mortality risk, particularly in patients with co-morbidities such as obesity, diabetes, and hypertension.⁷ This study shows that PICO sNPWT may contribute to reduced surgical site complications for at risk patients and improved health economic outcomes the hospital.

“The differences we are seeing likely relate to the PICO system and its dressing design, as well as the associated mechanisms of action that may contribute to improved clinical outcomes.” said Dr. Adam Wright, orthopedic surgeon and study co- author. “Using PICO sNPWT prophylactically on at-risk patients undergoing orthopedic or cardiovascular surgeries helps reduce SSCs, and consequently, strain on healthcare resources.”

The study findings complement the growing evidence supporting prophylactic use of incisional negative pressure wound therapy (iNPWT) across surgery. A recent meta-analysis presented at the International Consensus Meeting 2025 concluded that “The use of iNPWT is recommended to minimize the risk of SSI in adult patients with primarily closed surgical incisions after lower extremity/acetabular fracture surgery and joint arthroplasty of the hip and knee.”  

The study data are aligned with the global recommendations including NICE,⁴ WHO,⁵ and the ACS/SIS⁶ guidelines, all of which recommend the use of iNPWT for the purpose of reducing SSI risk for at risk patients. 

Smith+Nephew is a portfolio medical technology company focused on the repair, regeneration and replacement of soft and hard tissue. Its 17,000 employees make a difference to patients’ lives through the company’s product portfolio and the invention and application of new technologies across its three global business units—Orthopaedics, Sports Medicine & ENT, and Advanced Wound Management. Founded in Hull, U.K., in 1856, Smith+Nephew operates in about 100 countries and generated $5.8 billion in 2024 sales. Smith+Nephew is an FTSE100 constituent.  

* Follow up to 30 days post discharge to establish complication levels post-surgery

References
¹ Bashyal RK, Searle R, Nherera LM, Wright A. Effects of single-use negative pressure wound therapy on healthcare use: US analysis of a large claims database. Journal of Wound Care . 2025;34(8):555-562.
² Meara JG, Leather AJM, Hagander L, et al. Global Surgery 2030: Evidence and solutions for achieving health, welfare, and economic development. The Lancet. Lancet Publishing Group. 2015;386(9993):569-624. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60160-X
³ CDC, Ncezid, DHQP. Surgical Site Infection Event (SSI). https://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/pdfs/ps-analysis-resources/ImportingProcedureData.pdf.
⁴ Surgical site infections: prevention and treatment NICE guideline. Published online 2019. Accessed September 9, 2022. www.nice.org.uk/guidance/MTG43. 
⁵ Global Guidelines for the Prevention of Surgical Site Infection. World Health Organization; 2018.
⁶ Ban K, Minei J, Laronga C, et al. American College of Surgeons and Surgical Infection Society: Surgical Site Infection Guidelines, 2016 Update.; 2017.
⁷ Ciprandi, G et al. World Union of Wound Healing Societies (WUWHS) Consensus Document. Closed surgical incision management: understanding the role of NPWT. Wounds International, 2016.
⁸ 3rd Meeting International Consensus Meeting, May 8-10th. Istanbul, Turkey. www.icmortho.org