WOUND MANAGEMENT, HEALING, AND EARLY PROSTHETIC REHABILITATION: PART 1 - A SCOPING REVIEW OF HEALING AND NON-HEALING DEFINITIONS

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: 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. Layman's Abstract After a lower limb amputation, early prosthetic fitting can significantly improve quality of life. However, different definitions of surgical site healing make deciding when a prosthetic can be used difficult. This scoping review collected and compared definitions of healing and non-healing found in research about biological markers (biomarkers) that are used for tracking residual limb healing. On May 6, 2023, searches were conducted using terms like “biomarkers,” “wound healing,” and “amputation” across several databases. Studies were included if they discussed biomarkers, focused on residual limb healing, had clear methods and ethical approval, and were published during or after 2017. Of 3,306 articles screened, 219 met the criteria, with 77% rated as high quality. 43% of the included sources did not define healing. Definitions provided included new skin growth (14%), reduction in wound size (28%), grading scales (3%), scarring (1%), no complications (2%), hydroxyproline levels (0.5%), no need for amputation (0.5%), or new blood vessel formation (0.5%). 84% of sources did not define non-healing, with the remainder based on healing complications (4%), the need for more surgery (4%), or no reduction in wound size (1%). In 10% of included sources healing and non-healing definitions were considered not relevant to their research. Total percentages for healing and non-healing definitions exceeds 100% because some sources used two definitions, for example, new skin growth and reduction in wound size. Overall, the review shows gaps in definitions, many of which are too basic and ignore deeper tissue healing and factors needed for prosthetic use. More thorough definitions that include the physical, mental, and social sides of healing are needed to improve recovery. Article PDF Link: https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/cpoj/article/view/43715/33312 How To Cite: Williams-Reid H, Johannesson A, Buis A. Wound management, healing, and early prosthetic rehabilitation: Part 1 - A scoping review of healing and non-healing definitions. Canadian Prosthetics & Orthotics Journal. 2024; Volume 7, Issue 2, No.1. https://doi.org/10.33137/cpoj.v7i2.43715 Corresponding Author: Professor Arjan Buis, PhDDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland.E-Mail: arjan.buis@strath.ac.ukORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3947-293X

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.