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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

Diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) is a major cause of lower limb amputations. Many treatment recommendations have been proposed. This study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of topical sucralfate when combined with mupirocin ointment, in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcer in comparison to topical mupirocin alone, in terms of healing rates.

This open-labeled randomized study was conducted on 108 patients to evaluate the effectiveness of topical sucralfate and mupirocin combination, compared to topical mupirocin alone. The patients were administered the same parenteral antibiotic, and wounds were subjected to daily dressing. The healing rates (determined by the percentage reduction in wound area) in the two groups were calculated. The mean healing rates in both groups were expressed in percentage and compared using the Student's t-test.

A total of 108 patients were included in the study. Male-to-female ratio was 3:1. The incidence of diabetic foot was the highest (50.9%) in the age group of 50-59 years. The mean age of the study population was 51 years. The incidence of diabetic foot ulcers was highest in the months of July-August (42%). A total of 71.2% patients had random blood sugar levels between 150-200 mg/dL, and 72.2% patients had diabetes for five to 10 years. The mean±standard deviation (SD) of the healing rates in the sucralfate and mupirocin combination group and the control group were 16.2±7.3% and 14.5±6.6%, respectively. Comparison of the means by Student's t-test failed to show a statistical difference in healing rates between the two groups (p=0.201).

We concluded that the addition of topical sucralfate does not show any obvious benefits in terms of healing rates in diabetic foot ulcers as compared to mupirocin alone.

Wound healing is a dynamic process initiated in response to injury. There are many factors that have detrimental effects on the wound healing process. Numerous studies have been conducted for improving wound healing processes. Dexpanthenol is widely used to accelerate wound healing. Sucralfate is used for the treatment of peptic ulcers. We aimed to compare the efficacy of topical Dexpanthenol and Sucralfate in an experimental wound model in rats via histopathological examinations and immune histochemical determinations, as well, to evaluate their effects on EGF levels. Three different groups were formed: the Control Group, the Dexpanthenol Group and the Sucralfate Group. Full-thickness skin wounds were created on the back of each rat and isotonic saline was applied to the wounds of the rats in the control group, Bepanthol^® cream was applied in Dexpanthenol Group and 10% Sucralfate cream was applied in Sucralfate Group, once a day. On the 7th, 14th and 21st days the wounds were measured and seven rats from each group were sacrificed and the wounds were excised for histopathological examination. Sucralfate increased wound healing rates by increasing neovascularization, fibroblast activation, reepithelialization and collagen density, as well as dexpanthenol. Our study revealed that the dexpanthenol and sucralfate groups were better than the control group in terms of their effects on wound healing, however there was no statistically significant difference among these two groups. Sucralfate improves EGF expression in skin wounds and has positive results on skin wound healing comparable to dexpanthenol.