Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

The Best Protocol to Treat Equine Skin Wounds by Second Intention Healing: A Scoping Review of the Literature

Ribeiro G., Carvalho L., Borges J., Prazeres J.

Narrative Review on Chronic Wound, published in Animals (Basel) (2024) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Narrative Review
Journal
Animals (Basel) (2024)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
38791717
PMCID
PMC11117370
DOI
10.3390/ani14101500
Citations
5

Abstract (original English)

Equine skin wound treatment continues to be a challenge for veterinarians. Despite being a frequent practice, it remains difficult to choose an evidence-based treatment protocol. This study aimed to comprehensively explore the literature and provide a scoping review of therapeutic strategies for equine skin wounds and identify knowledge gaps and opportunities for future research. This review was conducted using specific criteria to select literature that described methods to manage second intention wound healing. After removing duplicates and screening papers for suitability, 81 manuscripts were included for data extraction. Of these, 59 articles were experimental studies, 10 were case reports, 9 were case series, and 3 were clinical studies. The most frequent wound location was the distal limbs. Macroscopic assessment was the main tool used to evaluate treatment effectiveness. All of the case reports, case series, and clinical studies reported positive outcomes with regard to the treatment used, while only 36% of the experimental studies found significant healing improvement in treated wounds compared to control groups. It was found that there are many treatments that have exhibited controversial results, and there exists a lack of evidence for the adoption of specific treatment protocols.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research