Background: The author proposes to compare ultraportable devices for Negative Pressure Wound Therapy. Main reviews in literature assert that there is a lack in data about this topic. Materials and Methods: The study was conducted in 3 phases. The first phase involved a deep study of all the characteristics and indications of the ultraportable devices for available NPWT, highlighting dimensions, type of canister, functioning, mmHg negative pressure, the modality of use. The second phase was clinical: we treated 125 patients and described our 2 years experience. We treated the first 25 patients with PICO; then, second 25 patients with Nanova, then Uno, VacVia, and Snap in order to obtain 5 group of 25 patients. The third phase of the study consisted in the collection of data of scientific literature on classic and ultraportable devices: other experiences, multicentric studies, case reports, new suggestions, and other data on the topic were analyzed providing a synthesis of all available information. We made a diagram in order to summarize our experience and to compare the devices. Results: We described the main characteristics, main advantages and disadvantages of all devices. The literature data allowed us to investigate better to these aspects and to confirm the lack in comparing ultraportable negative wound pressure devices. Conclusions: All ultraportable devices have singular characteristics. Physician who want to use them, must know them in order to made appropriate therapy.
Keywords: Nanova; PICO; SNaP; negative pressure wound therapy; ultraportable devices; wound care.