Wound management, healing, and early prosthetic rehabilitation : Part 1- a scoping review of healing and non-healing definitions

Williams-Reid, Hannelore and Johannesson, Anton and Buis, Arjan (2024) Wound management, healing, and early prosthetic rehabilitation : Part 1- a scoping review of healing and non-healing definitions. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal, 7 (2). 1. ISSN 2561-987X (https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v7i2.43715)

[thumbnail of CPOJ-2024-WOUND-MANAGEMENT-HEALING-AND-EARLY-PROSTHETIC-REHABILITATION-PART-1]
Preview
 Text. Filename: CPOJ-2024-WOUND-MANAGEMENT-HEALING-AND-EARLY-PROSTHETIC-REHABILITATION-PART-1.pdf
Final Published Version
License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 logo
Download (916kB)| Preview

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Following lower limb amputation, timely prosthetic fitting enhances mobility and quality of life. However, inconsistent definitions of surgical site healing complicate prosthesis readiness assessment and highlight the need for objective wound management measures. OBJECTIVE(S): This review aimed to compile definitions of healing and non-healing provided in the literature investigating biomarkers of healing of the tissues and structures found in the residual limbs of adults with amputation. METHODOLOGY: A scoping review was conducted following JBI and PRISMA-ScR guidance. Searches using “biomarkers,” “wound healing,” and “amputation” were performed on May 6, 2023, on Web of Science, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, PubMed, and CINAHL databases. Inclusion criteria were: 1) References to biomarkers and healing; 2) Residuum tissue healing; 3) Clear methodology with ethical approval; 4) Published from 2017 onwards. Articles were assessed for quality (QualSyst tool) and evidence level (JBI system). FINDINGS: Of 3,306 articles screened, 219 met the inclusion criteria and are reviewed in this article, with 77% rated strong quality. 43% of all included sources did not define healing, while the remainder used specific criteria including epithelialization (14%), wound size reduction (28%), gradings scales (3%), scarring (1%), absence of wound complications (2%), hydroxyproline levels (0.5%), no amputation (0.5%), or neovascularization (0.5%). 84% of included sources did not provide definitions of non-healing. Studies defining non-healing used criteria like wound complications (4%), the need for operative interventions (4%), or lack of wound size reduction (1%). For 10% of included sources, healing and non-healing definitions were considered not applicable given the research content. Total percentages exceed 100% for both healing and non-healing definitions because some sources used two definition classifications, such as epithelialization and wound size reduction. The findings indicate a lack of standardized definitions irrespective of study type. CONCLUSION: This review reveals significant gaps in current definitions of healing and non-healing, often based on superficial assessments that overlook deeper tissue healing and mechanical properties essential for prosthesis use. It emphasizes the need for comprehensive definitions incorporating biomarkers and psychosocial factors to improve wound management and post-amputation recovery. DATA STATEMENT: All data underpinning this publication are openly available from the University of Strathclyde KnowledgeBase at https://doi.org/10.15129/f5044ee8-5689-49c2-a67a-1cbe26af8a58.

ORCID iDs

Williams-Reid, Hannelore, Johannesson, Anton and Buis, Arjan ORCID logoORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3947-293X;
CORE (COnnecting REpositories)