Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceSystematic ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

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

Williams-Reid H., Johannesson A., Buis A.

Systematic Review on Chronic Wound, Scar, published in Can Prosthet Orthot J (2024) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceEvidence level of this study

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

  • 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
Systematic Review
Journal
Can Prosthet Orthot J (2024)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
39990241
PMCID
PMC11844765
DOI
10.33137/cpoj.v7i2.43715
Citations
2

Abstract (original English)

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%), hydroxypro

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.

Evidence level

Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

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

Related research