Share this article

Europe, the Middle East and Africa; The OneNPWT clinical decision tree for open wounds

Angelos Karatzias, Ardian Karakushi, Caroline Payne, Ethel Andrews, Kevin Adams, Tomasz Banasiewicz

16 February 2023

Chronic non-healing wounds present a substantial economic and epidemiological burden on healthcare systems across Europe, the Middle East and Africa (Gupta et al, 2021). Evidence-based recommendations are required to guide clinical decisions regarding negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) systems and to drive clinical, operational, and financial efficiencies for healthcare providers.

The OneNPWT clinical decision tree is a clinical decision-making tool to help simplify and optimise NPWT provision, and to help guide the selection of RENASYS™ Negative Pressure Wound Therapy System (RENASYS™ tNPWT) or PICO™ Single Use Negative Pressure Wound Therapy System (PICO™ sNPWT). Prompt selection of sNPWT has been shown to quicken patient discharge, improve patient satisfaction, alleviate workloads associated with system maintenance, and reduce healthcare costs (Hurd et al, 2021).

An international panel of clinicians from Cyprus, Kosovo, Poland, South Africa and the United Kingdom experienced in wound care and NPWT use was convened. Specialties of the panellists included nursing, dermatology, orthopaedic surgery, gastrointestinal surgical oncology, and aesthetic and reconstructive plastic surgery. The panel aimed to review the clinical, operational, and financial challenges of using either traditional NPWT (tNPWT) or single-use NPWT (sNPWT), and to validate the potential of the OneNPWT clinical decision tree as an evidence-based decision-making tool in their practice. During the discussion, a facilitator posed questions to the clinicians about the OneNPWT clinical decision tree, including its usefulness for clinical practice, barriers to its adoption, whether they would implement the decision tree in their practice, and suggestions for improvement.

This document provides an overview of the panel’s feedback based on their clinical experience of using the OneNPWT decision tree in practice, with the cases summarised below.

↓ Download pdf

Disclaimer: Supported by an educational grant from Smith+Nephew.

References

Apelqvist J, Willy C, Fagerdahl AM et al (2017) EWMA Document: Negative Pressure Wound Therapy. J Wound Care 26: S1-S154

Banasiewicz T, Banky B, Karsenti A et al (2019) Traditional and single-use NPWT: when to use and how to decide on the appropriate use? Recommendations of an expert panel. Wounds International

Brownhill R (2019) PICO◊ Biomechanical Study. Data on file report. DS/19/211/R

Cray A (2017) Negative pressure wound therapy and nurse education. Br J Nurs 26(15): S6-S18

Dowsett C (2017) Breaking the cycle of hard-to-heal wounds: balancing cost and case. Wounds International

Dowsett C, Hampton K, Myers D, Styche T (2017) Use of PICO to improve clinical and economic outcomes in hard-to-heal wounds. Wounds International 8(2): 52-8

Fraccalvieri M, Fierro MT, Salomone M et al (2012) Gauze-based negative pressure wound therapy: a valid method to manage pyoderma gangrenosum. International Wound Journal 11: 164-68

Guest JF, Fuller GW, Vowden P (2020) Cohort study evaluating the burden of wounds to the UK’s National Health Service in 2017/2018: update from 2012/2013. BMJ Open 10(12): e045253

Gupta S, Sagar S, Maheshwari G et al (2021) Chronic wounds: magnitude, socioeconomic burden and consequences. Wounds Asia

Hampton J (2015) Providing cost-effective treatment of hard-to-heal wounds in the community through use of NPWT. Community Wound Care S14-S20

Hudson DA, Adams KG, Van Huyssteen A et al (2015) Simplified negative pressure wound therapy: clinical evaluation of an ultraportable, no-canister system. Int Wound J 12(2): 195–201

Hurd T (2013) Evaluating Cost and Benefits of Innovations in Chronic Wound Care Products and Practices. Ostomy Wound Manage S1-S13.

Hurd T, Gilchrist B (2020) Single use negative pressure wound therapy (sNPWT) in the community management of chronic open wounds deeper than 2cm. Paper presented at: Symposium on Advanced Wound Care/Wound Healing Society Meeting; 2020; Abu Dhabi

Hurd T, Kirsner RS, Sancho-Insenser JJ et al (2021) International Consensus Panel Recommendations for the Optimization of Traditional and Single-Use Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in the Treatment of Acute and Chronic Wounds. Wounds 33(2): S1-S11

Janssen AHJ, Wegdam JA, de Vries Reilingh TS et al (2021) Which determinants are considered to be important for adherence to Negative Pressure Wound Therapy: A multimethods study. J Tissue Viability 30(2): 250-255

Jeffery SL (2014) The use of an antimicrobial primary wound contact layer as liner and filler with NPWT. J Wound Care 23(8): S3-14

Kirsner R, Dove C, Reyzelman A, Vayser D, Jaimes H (2019) A Prospective, Randomised, Controlled Clinical Trial on the Efficacy of a single-use Negative Pressure Wound Therapy System, compared to Traditional Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in the Treatment of Chronic Ulcers of the Lower Extremities. Wound Repair Regen 27(5): 519–529

Kirsner RS, Delhougne G, Searle RJ (2020) A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing single-use and traditional negative pressure wound therapy to treat chronic venous and diabetic foot ulcers. Wound Manag Prev 66(3): 30–38

Kirsner RS, Hurd T (2020) Assessing the Need for Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Utilization Guidelines: An Overview of the Challenges With Providing Optimal Care. Wounds 32(12): 328-33

Lalezari S, Lee CJ, Borovikova AA et al (2017) Deconstructing negative pressure wound therapy. Int Wound J 14(4): 649-57

Malmsjö M, Ingemansson R, Martin R, Huddleston E (2009) Negative pressure wound therapy using gauze or open‐cell polyurethane foam: similar early effects on pressure transduction and tissue contraction in an experimental porcine wound model. Wound Repair Regen 17: 200–5

Nherera LM, Trueman P, Karlakki SL (2017) 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 Regen 25(3): 474-82

Patel A, Delhougne G, Nherera L (2019) Comparison of wound closure in chronic lower extremity ulcers between single use negative pressure wound therapy and traditional negative pressure wound therapy: a real world analysis. Paper presented at: National Wound Conference; 2019; Las Vegas, NV, USA

Seidel D, Diedrich S, Herrle F et al (2020) Negative Pressure Wound Therapy vs Conventional Wound Treatment in Subcutaneous Abdominal Wound Healing Impairment: The SAWHI Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Surg 155(6): 469-78

Sen CK (2019) Human Wounds and Its Burden: An Updated Compendium of Estimates. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle) 8(2): 39-48

Sen CK, Gordillo GM, Roy S et al (2009) Human skin wounds: a major and snowballing threat to public health and the economy. Wound Repair Regen 17(6): 763-71

Smith+Nephew (2018) Summary of routine QA testing on MVP of PICO dressings. Internal Report. DS/18/153/R

Smith+Nephew (2019) Use of Moisture Vapour Permeability* (MVP) and Moisture Vapour Transmission rate** (MVTR) data to support product claims referring to moist wound healing. Internal Report

Smith+Nephew (2020) Bacterial barrier testing of the PICO Dressing. Internal Report. 2001002

Tanaydin V, Beugels J, Andriessen A et al (2018) 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 42(4): 927-35

Tuncel U, Erkorkmaz Ü, Turan A (2013) Clinical evaluation of gauze-based negative pressure wound therapy in challenging wounds. Int Wound J 10(2): 152-8

World Union of Wound Healing Societies (2019) Wound exudate: effective assessment and management. Wounds International

World Union of Wound Healing Societies (2020) Optimising wound care through patient engagement. Wounds International