Major evidence themes noted in the policy mirror systematic reviews, RCTs, and HTAs with variable certainty: the Cochrane (Norman et al.) updates (2020/2022) summarized a large body of RCTs (62 RCTs, ~13,340 individuals in the 2022 update) and concluded that prophylactic NPWT probably reduces surgical site infections versus standard dressings, with no difference in wound dehiscence (moderate-certainty) and possible reduced postoperative mortality (low-certainty).
For pressure ulcers and some chronic wound types the evidence is of very low to low certainty and remains uncertain (Cochrane pressure ulcer review, Shi et al. 2023). Evidence for diabetic foot/neuropathic ulcers is mixed: several systematic reviews and RCTs suggest NPWT may improve healing and reduce amputations, but trial quality varies and overall certainty is often low.
Closed-incision/ciNPWT (iNPWT) evidence is mixed: some meta-analyses and specialty reviews report reduced surgical site complications and shorter length of stay for selected abdominal or high-risk incisions, but large RCTs (e.g., SUNRRISE, WHIST and other trials) show inconsistent results and some trials (e.g., terminated cesarean trial) raised safety/futility concerns — overall the evidence is variable and not uniformly supportive for routine use.
NPWT with instillation (NPWTi-d) shows promising signals in small studies, observational series, and meta-analyses (e.g., faster wound closure, fewer debridements, higher closure rates in traumatic/orthoplastic wounds), but the policy emphasizes that the evidence is low quality and heterogeneous, requiring larger high-quality RCTs.
For pilonidal disease the systematic reviews and pooled analyses identify potential benefits (reduced healing time and recurrence in some studies) but rate the certainty as very low, and the policy states insufficient evidence to support routine use.