Abdominal

Abdominal surgery such as laparotomy, stoma closure and incisional hernia repair could carry a high rate of surgical site complications (SSCs).8-13

Challenge the norm

Following abdominal surgery, PICO sNPWT has been shown to significantly reduce:*

  • Incidence of SSCs, including SSIs1-3,5-7
  • Length of stay (LoS)2,4-6
  • Readmission rates5

General, colorectal, vascular surgery

Application tips

  • The PICO 7 or PICO 14 System may be appropriate for these procedures
  • The PICO System may be used in conjunction with surgical drains provided the dressing is not placed over tubing where it exits the skin
  • Exudation: low/moderate
  • Remove excess hair and use NO STING SKIN-PREP◊ Skin Protectant if needed
  • For wounds 0.5cm–4.5cm deep, a filler may be required
  • Fillers: ACTICOAT◊ FLEX Dressing, foam, gauze
  • Do not place gauze into blind or unexplored tunnels
  • Do not use over exposed arteries, veins, nerves or organs
  • Port position: uppermost from incision
  • In areas of complexity, fixation strips or gel strips* (*not included in kit) may be used to maintain a seal
  • Dressing may be left in place for up to 7 days. The PICO 14 Pump will continue therapy for 14 days.

  1. Gupta R, Darby GC, Imagawa DK. Efficacy of negative pressure wound treatment in preventing surgical site infections after whipple procedures. Am Surg. 2017;83(10):1166–1169.
  2. O'Leary DP, Peirce C, et al. Prophylactic negative pressure dressing use in closed laparotomy wounds following abdominal operations: a randomized, controlled, open-label trial: The P.I.C.O. Trial. Ann Surg. 2017;265:1082–1086.
  3. Abadía P, Ocaña J, Ramos D, et al. Prophylactic use of negative pressure wound therapy reduces surgical site infections in elective colorectal surgery: A prospective cohort study. Surg Infect. 2020 Jun 10. [Epub ahead of print].
  4. Obeid N, Sharma E, Dunstan M, et al. Negative pressure therapy for stoma closure sited – a nonrandomised case control study. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2020 Sep 14;[Epub ahead of print].
  5. Selvaggi F, et al. New advances in NPWT for surgical wounds of patients affected with Crohn’s disease. Surg Technol Int. 2014;24:83–89.
  6. Interim data: Pellino G, et al. Effects of a new pocket device for NPWT on surgical wounds of patients affected with Crohn’s disease: a pilot trial. Surg Innov. 2014;21(2):204–212.
  7. Bueno-Lledó J, Franco-Bernal A, Garcia-Voz-Mediano MT, Torregrosa-Gallud A, Bonafé S. Prophylactic Single-use Negative Pressure Dressing in Closed Surgical Wounds After Incisional Hernia Repair: A Randomized, Controlled Trial. Annals of Surgery. 2020 Nov 12.
  8. Tanner J, Khan D, Aplin C, Ball J, Thomas M, Bankart J. Post-discharge surveillance to identify colorectal surgical site infection rates and related costs. Journal of Hospital Infection. 2009 Jul 1;72(3):243–50.
  9. Petrosillo N, Drapeau CM, Nicastri E, Martini L, Ippolito G, Moro ML. Surgical site infections in Italian hospitals: a prospective multicenter study. BMC Infectious Diseases. 2008 Dec 1;8(1):34.
  10. Wick EC, Gibbs L, Indorf LA, Varma MG, Garcia-Aguilar J. Implementation of quality measures to reduce surgical site infection in colorectal patients. Diseases of the colon & rectum. 2008 Jul 1;51(7):1004–9.
  11. Smith RL, Bohl JK, McElearney ST, Friel CM, Barclay MM, Sawyer RG, Foley EF. Wound infection after elective colorectal resection. Annals of surgery. 2004 May;239(5):599.
  12. Yoshida J, Shinohara M, Ishikawa M, Matsuo K. Surgical site infection in general and thoracic surgery: surveillance of 2 663 cases in a Japanese teaching hospital. Surgery Today. 2006 Feb 1;36(2):114–8.
  13. Serra-Aracil X, Espin-Basany E, Biondo S, Guirao X, Orrego C, Sitges-Serra A. Surgical site infection in elective operations for colorectal cancer after the application of preventive measures. Archives of surgery. 2011 May 1;146(5):606–12.

* Compared with standard surgical dressings; n = 25 vs n = 36; p = 0.01
† Compared with standard surgical dressings; n = 24 vs n = 25; p = 0.043
‡ Compared with standard surgical dressings; n = 24 vs n = 25; p = 0.019
§ Compared with traditional packing; n = 17 vs n = 15; 5 vs 6 days
Π Compared with traditional packing; n = 17 vs n = 15; 1.9 vs 11.9 visits
¶ Compared with standard surgical dressings; n = 25 vs n = 25; p = 0.008
# Compared with standard surgical dressings; n = 24 vs n = 25; p = 0.019
Δ Compared with standard surgical dressings; n = 72 vs n = 74; 16.6 v 29.8%; p < 0.042
Ω Compared with standard surgical dressings; n = 72 vs n = 74; 0 vs 8%; p < 0.002