AzTrials
AzTrials

Phantom Limb PainNCT04538417

C-RFA of Residual Limb Neuroma

A study testing Cooled Radiofrequency Ablation in people with Phantom Limb Pain and Neuroma Amputation, run by University of Utah at 1 site in United States.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

To assess changes in pain, physical function, and health-related quality of life in patients with post-amputation neuroma-associated residual limb pain after cooled radiofrequency ablation. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 years and older
Conditions the study is for
Phantom Limb Pain, Neuroma Amputation
What is being tested?
Cooled Radiofrequency Ablation
Type of treatment
Medical device
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
8 participants
Where
1 siteUnited States
Study dates
27 Oct 2019to 30 Aug 2023
Phase
Interventional
Are there results?
Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 18 years and older
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • Age greater than 18 years of age at day of enrollment.
  • Clinical diagnosis lower extremity amputation performed more than 1 year since study enrollment.
  • Residual pain described as burning pain and sensations of movement in the affected amputated limb32.
  • Pain duration of more than 6 months despite a trial of conservative therapy (medications, physical therapy) for 2 months.
  • Ultrasound and / or MRI imaging pathology consistent with clinical symptoms and signs.
  • Greater than 50% pain relief with a diagnostic neuroma block

Who cannot join

  • Refusal or inability to participate, provide consent, or provide follow-up information for the 12-month duration of the study.
  • Contraindications to diagnostic block or treatment ablation (active infection, bleeding disorders, and pregnancy or breastfeeding, active immunosuppression, participation in another phantom or residual limb pain trial within the last 30 days
  • Non-neurogenic source of residual or phantom limb pain.
  • Active moderate to severe lumbar radiculopathy.
  • Any injection in the residual limb within the last 30 days.
  • Severe uncontrolled medical condition as determined by treating physician.
Show all 10Show fewer
  • Severe psychological illness.
  • History of Inflammatory arthritis.
  • Malignancy within past 5 years except basal cell or squamous cell skin cancer. 10. Current opioid use exceeding50morphinemilligram equivalents per day.
  • 11. A history of alcohol or drug abuse within past 5 years. 12. Use of any investigational drug within past 30 days. 13. Pending litigation involving participant's residual limb pain. 14. Incarceration

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

United States1 site
  • University of Utah

    Salt Lake City, Utah, 84108

Other trials in United States

About this study

Official title: Cooled Radiofrequency Ablation for the Treatment of Refractory Phantom and Residual Limb Pain; a Pilot Study.

To assess changes in pain, physical function, and health-related quality of life in patients with post-amputation neuroma-associated residual limb pain after cooled radiofrequency ablation.

Read the detailed description

Residual limb (RLP) and phantom limb pain (PLP) affects most amputees at some point in their life1. The incidence of PLP has been estimated to range between 50 - 80%. RLP prevalence has been estimated to be 43%. The peak of onset is bimodal and often appears within the first month and second year after amputation. RLP is more common in the first year after amputation, with PLP becoming the predominate amputee pain complaint after one-year post-amputation.

Both RLP and PLP fall under the umbrella term "post-amputation pain." While these conditions are frequently found in combination, their clinical features and underlying causes are distinct. PLP is a painful sensation in the distribution of the missing limb. Following amputation, abnormalities at multiple levels of the neural axis have been implicated in the development of PLP; changes include cortical reorganization, reduced inhibitory processes at the spinal cord, synaptic response changes and hyperexcitability at the dorsal root ganglion, and retrograde peripheral nerves shrinkage.

Residual limb pain has been called "neuroma pain" and is mechanistically distinct from PLP11. Neuromas may form as early 6-10 weeks after nerve transection, and are thought the produce ectopic neural discharges resulting in severe pain. Evidence suggests RLP and PLP commonly co-occur and patients may struggle to differentiate between these pain types. Risk factors include female sex, upper extremity amputation, pre-amputation pain, residual pain in contralateral limb, and time since amputation.

Depression, anxiety, and stress are known to exacerbate PLP / RLP. Patients experiencing PLP and RLP also experience a higher incidence of indecisiveness, suicidal ideation, and thoughts of self-harm8. Current guidelines for treatment of PLP and RLP are not standardized. Treatments includes pre-operative analgesia, neuromodulation mirror therapy, imagery, acupuncture, transcranial stimulation, deep brain stimulation, and medications (including, but not limited to: TCAs, SSRIs, gabapentinoids, sodium channel blockers, ketamine, opioids, and NSAIDs). Many agents have been injected in neuromas. These include local anesthetic, phenol, alcohol, and botulinum toxin. These oral, intravenous, and nonpharmacological modalities have demonstrated limited success in the treatment of PLP / RLP. Neuroma cryoablation has been used, but this method of neural destruction poses technical challenges related to cumbersome needle placement and the requirement for time-intensive freeze-thaw cycles.

Conventional RFA has been studied on RLP. Zhang et. al treated 13 patients with painful stump neuromas. The study started with alcohol neurolysis before using ultrasound-guided RFA for refractory cases. The frequency of sharp pain was reduced in all RFA-treated patients. Kim et. al described a case in which ultrasound-guided RFA was successfully used to treat a sciatic neuroma of an above-knee amputee.

No outcome literature on the effectiveness of C-RFA technology has been published. C-RFA is similar in mechanism to conventional RFA: a thermal lesion is created by applying radiofrequency energy through an electrode placed at a target structure. In C-RFA, a constant flow of ambient water is circulated through the electrode via a peristaltic pump, maintaining a lowered tissue temperature by creating a heat sink. By removing heat from tissues immediately adjacent to the electrode tip, a lower lesioning temperature is maintained, resulting in less tissue charring adjacent to the electrode, less tissue impedance and more efficient heating of target tissue. The volume of tissue heated, and the resultant thermal lesion size is substantially larger with C-RFA, conferring an advantage over conventional RFA. Further, given the spherical geometry and forward projection the C-RFA lesions beyond the distal end of the electrode, the RFA probe can be positioned at a range of possible angles and still capture the target neural structure, whereas more fastidious, parallel positioning is required with conventional RFA. These technical advantages increase the probability of successful denervation of neural pain generators that have variability in anatomic location. Additionally, a longer lesion of the RLP-generating nerve may be more reliably achieved with C-RFA compared to conventional RFA.

As such, the present study aims to define the attributable effect of cooled RFA on pain, physical function, and health-related quality of life in patients with post-amputation neuroma-associated residual limb pain. This prospective single-arm pilot study is intended to inform a future properly powered randomized controlled trial.

Being tested
Cooled Radiofrequency Ablation
Keywords
Cooled Radiofrequency Ablation
Medical subject headings
Phantom Limb

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • Cooled Radiofrequency AblationDevice

    RFA procedures will be performed with modification accounting for appropriate C-RFA technique. Participant will be positioned prone and skin prepped with chloroprep. Ultrasound probe will be placed on residual limb at a transverse angle in order to view the nerve and associated neuroma in long-axis. The probe will be advanced to the site of the stump neuroma. C-RFA electrode will be placed adjacent to neuroma. Needle will be connected via wire to a cooled radiofrequency generator. Motor and sensory testing will be performed to reproduce or exacerbate the RLP and / or PLP. At the site of the neuroma, 2 mL of local anesthetic will be injected through the needle. C-RFA lesions will be created by using the typical C-RFA protocol. Upon completion needle will be removed. Following ablation, 0.5 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine will be injected at the site of the ablated neuroma to provide post procedure analgesia.

Study groups in NCT04538417
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Residual Limb Pain in affected amputated limbOtherPatient has residual limb pain in amputated limb and is scheduled to receive standard of care treatment of cooled radiofrequency ablation.
Receives: Device: Cooled Radiofrequency Ablation

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for Pain at 6 Months

    Presented here is the proportion of participants reporting ≥50% improvement in Numeric Rating Scale pain score at 6 months after their cooled radiofrequency ablation procedure. The Numeric Rating Scale was used to quantify neuroma-associated residual limb pain by asking patients to rate their pain intensity on an 11-point scale ranging from 0 to 10, with 0 representing "no pain at all" and 10 representing "the worst pain imaginable".

    Measured: 6 months

Secondary outcomes (3)
  1. Median Change in Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) Scores for Pain

    Patients rated their residual limb pain intensity at baseline and the designated follow-up timepoints using an 11-point Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) ranging from 0 to 10, with 0 representing "no pain at all" and 10 representing "the worst pain imaginable". Change scores were calculated by subtracting follow-up scores from baseline scores. Median change scores and their interquartile ranges are reported here. Positive median change scores indicate pain improvement from baseline, with greater values corresponding to greater pain relief. Similarly, negative change scores indicate worsening pain from baseline.

    Measured: 1, 3, 6, and 12 months

  2. Medication Quantification Scale III Mean Score

    The Medication Quantification Scale (MQS) is calculated using a pain-related medication detriment score based on drug class, which ranges from 1.1 to 4.5, and multiplying it by a usage score: 1 = subtherapeutic or occasional dose/2 = lower 50% of a therapeutic dose/ 3 = upper 50% of a therapeutic dose/ 4 = supratherapeutic dose. The higher the score, the more pain-related medication the participant takes to control their pain. The resulting score is useful in research for tracking individual or group pain medication use over time.

    Measured: 1, 3, 6 and 12 Months

  3. Proportion of Patients With a ≥6 Score on Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC)

    Patient Global Impression of Change is a scale which measures participant reported satisfaction after an intervention. The outcome was measured as the percent of patients reporting a PGIC score of 6-7 (indicating "much improved" and "very much improved").

    Measured: 1, 3, 6, and 12 months

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted4 Sep 2020
  2. Study start27 Oct 2019
  3. Primary completion30 Aug 2023
  4. Study completion30 Aug 2023

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase N/A
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Not applicable
Intervention model
Single group
Model description
Participants who meet inclusion and exclusion criteria will be enrolled into the study after consenting to participate and before receiving residual limb neuroma C-RFA. This procedure is considered standard of care and are typically based on physician preference. Data will be collected by questionnaire at baseline and select follow up timelines.
Masking
None (open label)
Enrolment
8 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT04538417
Sponsor's protocol ID
IRB 106250
Status last verified
Dec 2024
First submitted
28 Aug 2020
Last updated
8 Jan 2025
Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
Yes
Individual data sharing
No

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing Cooled Radiofrequency Ablation in people with Phantom Limb Pain and Neuroma Amputation, run by University of Utah at 1 site in United States.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 6 inclusion and 10 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 8 Jan 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 18 Mar 2024). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for Pain at 6 Months (time frame: 6 months). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 8 Jan 2025.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in