The Best Protocol to Treat Equine Skin Wounds by Second Intention Healing: A Scoping Review of the Literature.
Authors: Ribeiro Gesiane, Carvalho Lúcia, Borges João, Prazeres José
Journal: Animals : an open access journal from MDPI
Summary
Equine clinicians frequently manage skin wounds healing by second intention, yet substantial uncertainty persists about which therapeutic approaches offer genuine evidence-based benefit. Researchers conducted a scoping review of 81 published studies (comprising 59 experimental investigations, 10 case reports, 9 case series, and 3 clinical trials) examining treatment protocols for second intention wound healing, with distal limb wounds representing the most commonly reported location across the literature. A striking discrepancy emerged between study designs: whilst case reports, case series, and clinical studies reported uniformly positive outcomes, only 36% of experimental studies demonstrated statistically significant healing improvements compared to control groups, suggesting publication bias and highlighting the limited rigour of much equine wound literature. Macroscopic wound assessment dominated the evaluation methods, which may obscure important histological or biomechanical differences in healing quality that could influence long-term functional outcomes. For practitioners, this review underscores the lack of consensus on specific treatment protocols and identifies a critical research gap—many commonly employed therapies show contradictory results across studies, reinforcing the need for standardised methodology and robust comparative trials before adopting novel wound management strategies with confidence.
Read the full abstract on PubMed
Practical Takeaways
- •No single evidence-based treatment protocol currently exists for equine second intention wound healing; practitioners must evaluate available evidence critically rather than following a standardized approach
- •Be cautious about case reports and clinical studies showing 100% positive outcomes—experimental evidence is much more mixed, suggesting many treatments have controversial or unproven efficacy
- •Current literature lacks robust comparative data; consider consulting multiple sources and monitoring individual horse response rather than expecting consistent results across treatments
Key Findings
- •81 manuscripts were included in the scoping review, comprising 59 experimental studies, 10 case reports, 9 case series, and 3 clinical studies
- •Only 36% of experimental studies demonstrated significant healing improvement in treated wounds compared to control groups
- •All case reports, case series, and clinical studies reported positive outcomes, indicating potential publication bias
- •Distal limbs were the most frequent wound location studied, and macroscopic assessment was the predominant evaluation tool