With the purpose of evaluating the ease of use and the aesthetic result of the NPseal negative pressure wound therapy device, a direct comparison between Dermabond closure and NPseal negative pressure wound therapy was evaluated. Laparoscopic port site incisions were dressed with either Dermabond or the NPseal negative pressure wound therapy device and aesthetic and functional outcomes were evaluated.

A 56-year-old male presenting after neoadjuvant 50Gy of radiation therapy with preoperative Xeloda was evaluated in our study. After neoadjuvant therapy he went on to have a Laparoscopic Low Anterior Resection of his rectum and sigmoid colon. Due to the preoperative radiation to the pelvis and systemic chemotherapy the resultant skin quality was poor, and the dermis was thinned. After the operation two laparoscopic port sites were chosen in opposite sides of the abdomen. These were closed with 4-0 monocryl and either covered with Dermabond or the NPseal negative pressure wound therapy device.

Throughout the patient’s hospital course, the NPseal negative pressure wound therapy device did not lose suction. The center chamber did not require any additional pumping. The patient did not complain of any discomfort from the device and the device did not become overly saturated with exudate necessitating removal and replacement. The device was removed on post operative day three by the patient. The incision was clean and dry with well appearing approximated edges. At the patient’s first clinic visit post operative day 24 pictures were taken and documented on the left. The patient was satisfied with both scars however he preferred the scar which was dressed with the NPseal dressing.

The patient found the NPseal negative pressure wound therapy device to be comfortable and easy to manage. Compared with standard Dermabond dressings, the NPseal negative pressure wound therapy device produced a more aesthetically pleasing wound to the patient. The small self-contained unit of the NPseal dressing allowed the patient to remain mobile, shower and dress as normal.

• NPseal negative pressure wound therapy device was easy to maintain
• The wound dressed with the NPseal negative pressure wound therapy device was more aesthetically pleasing on POD24 after use. 
• NPseal negative pressure wound therapy device was easy to remove at bedside by patient
• Patient was able to mobilize, shower and dress with the NPseal negative pressure wound therapy device in place.

The patient was satisfied with both scars however he preferred the scar which was dressed with the NPseal dressing.