Abstract


Background: Disposable NPWT (dNPWT), a form of negative-pressure wound therapy, has been shown to be both outcome- and cost-effective for small to medium-sized wounds or closed incisions compared to traditional NPWT systems. When choosing a dNPWT system, multiple factors should be evaluated, including the wound size, wound type, estimated exudate production, and required days of therapy. If the device is not optimized for use in a particular patient, a much higher overall cost can be expected.
Methods: A web-based search, manufacturer website review and communication, and list price-based cost analysis was performed for currently available dNPWT systems. These systems differ with respect to cost, degree of negative pressure, canister size, number of dressings included, and recommended days of therapy.
Results: The results showed that 3M™ KCI devices (3M™ KCI, St. Paul, MN) cost about 6x more per day than non-KCI devices, and the V.A.C.® Via and Prevena™ Plus Customizable Incision Management System (both 3M KCI) cost over $180 per day of use. The no-canister Pico 14™ (Smith+Nephew, Watford, UK) is the most cost-effective dNPWT option, with an overall cost of $25.00 per day, but is limited to low exudate-producing wounds, such as closed incisions. At $25.67 per day, the UNO 15 (Genadyne Biotechnologies, Hicksville, NY) is the most cost-effective dNPWT option that still includes a replaceable canister system.
Conclusion: We present a cost and metric comparison of currently available dNPWT systems. Despite significant differences in the cost of treatment with each dNPWT device, there has been limited research on their relative efficacies.