CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT05330611Trauma-PC2Updated Apr 24, 2026Results posted

Treatment of Adult Traumatic Rib Fractures With Percutaneous Cryoneurolysis

An interventional study of Cryoneurolysis of Intercostal Nerves and Standard of Care in Rib Fractures, sponsored by Stanford University. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 64 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-04-24.

Sponsored by Stanford University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
43
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years to 64 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The purpose of this research study is to examine the effectiveness of using the Iovera Smart Time 190, for ultrasound-guided cryoneurolysis, in trauma patients 18-64 years old with rib fractures that are not candidates for surgical stabilization. This will offer patients the benefits of cryoneurolysis of the intercostal nerves, thereby providing short and long term pain control while their ribs heal.

The Iovera Smart Tip 190 is FDA approved for cryoneurolysis.

Read the detailed description

The purpose of this research study is to examine the effectiveness of using the Iovera Smart Time 190, for minimally invasive ultrasound-guided cryoneurolysis, in trauma patients 18-64 years old with rib fractures that are not candidates for surgical stabilization. This procedure will offer patients the benefits of cryoneurolysis (freezing) of the intercostal nerves, thereby providing short and long term pain control while their ribs heal.

Patients in the intervention arm will receive cryoneurolysis via the Iovera device and patients in the control arm will receive standard of care which typically includes multimodal pain therapy and pulmonary toilet. Short and long term pain relief will be compared among both arms.

02

Conditions studied

  • Rib Fractures

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • Percutaneous Cryoneurolysis
03

In context

Rib Fractures

131 studies on the registry are indexed under Rib Fractures; 27 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 43 is below the median of 60 across 99 interventional studies indexed under Rib Fractures.

Browse Rib Fractures studies →

Lead sponsor

Stanford University is the lead sponsor of 2,117 studies on the registry; 425 are open to participants now.

Of its 259 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 197 (76%) have results posted.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 64 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • Patients 18 to 64 years with any acute rib fracture between rib 3 and rib 9
  • Pain score equal to or greater than 5 with deep inspiration
  • Presenting and admitted to Stanford Adult Emergency Department, having a trauma consult, and being admitted to the trauma floors of Stanford Healthcare (SHC) for their inpatient stay

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Radiographic evidence of metastasis to ribs
  • Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score \<13
  • Patients undergoing SSRF (Surgical stabilization of rib fractures)
  • Rib fractures located \< 3cm from spinous process
  • Coagulopathy (INR >1.5, Plt \< 100)
  • Other factors precluding cryoneurolysis at the attending's discretion
  • If only ribs broken are 1,2 or 10,11,12
  • Inability to be positioned for the procedure
  • If the patient has the following conditions that the manufacturer of the Iovera device advises AGAINST using the device if present: Cryoglobulinemia, Paroxysmal cold hemoglobinuria, Cold urticaria, Raynaud's disease, open and/or infected wounds at or near the treatment site.
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
43 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Ultrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group A

    Patients who are admitted to the Emergency Department after a traumatic injury. Patients will have rib fractures in any of ribs 3-9. Patients will be 18-64 years of age and will be randomized (1:1) to the ultrasound-guided cryoneurolysis group within 72 hours of admission to the ED. Intervention is ultrasound-guided cryoneurolysis of intercostal nerves creating lost lasting pain relief. Device used for cryoneurolysis is Iovera Smart tip 190

    Device: Cryoneurolysis of Intercostal Nerves

  • Active comparator
    Standard-of-Care : Group B

    Patients who are admitted to the Emergency Department after a traumatic injury. Patients will have rib fractures in any of ribs 3-9. Patients will be 18-64 years of age and will be randomized (1:1) to Standard of Care which typically includes multi-modal pain therapy and pulmonary toilet.

    Other: Standard of Care

Interventions

  • DeviceCryoneurolysis of Intercostal Nerves

    Patients will be offered a minimally invasive intervention procedure for pain control called cryoneurolysis using an ultrasound-guided device called the Iovera Smart Tip 190. The direct application of cold to the intercostal nerves via Iovera device produces lesions in peripheral nervous tissue to block the pain caused by rib fractures. This procedure is particularly beneficial for patients who are not candidates for surgical stabilization of their rib fractures. Application of cryoneurolysis as an analgesic will reduce the amount of narcotics patients might need and instead provide them short- or long-term pain control with minimal risk. Follow up includes pain surveys administered in Chest Wall clinic or via telephone at 30, 90, 365 days post discharge.

  • OtherStandard of Care

    Patients will be provided regular standard of care at the Stanford Hospital with short- or long-term follow-up provided at the Stanford Center for Reconstruction after Chest Wall Injury. Standard of care for patients with rib fractures that are not eligible for surgical stabilization includes multi-modal pain therapy and pulmonary toilet. Follow up includes pain surveys administered in Chest Wall clinic or via telephone at 30, 90, 365 days post discharge.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Daily Numeric Pain Score

    Patients will be asked to verbalize their numeric pain score, measured on a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being no pain and 10 being the worst pain. Daily numeric pain score is collected on the day the patient is discharged from the hospital.

    Time frame: At time of discharge from hospital (up to 1 month)

Secondary outcomes

  1. Daily Narcotic Equivalents

    Morphine Milligram Equivalents (MME)

    Time frame: Collected at discharge (up to 1 month), 1, 3, 12 months post discharge

  2. Number of Patients With 30-day Mortality

    Number of patients who died within 30 days of discharge, obtained from chart review.

    Time frame: 1 month after hospital discharge

  3. Need for ICU Admission

    Will be obtained from chart review after discharge

    Time frame: 1 month after hospital discharge

  4. Number of Patients With a 30-day Rib-specific Admission

    Patients with at least one rib-specific readmission (delayed hemothorax, pneumothorax, pneumonia, pain) within 30 days of discharge

    Time frame: 1 month after hospital discharge

  5. The McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) and Pain Rating Index (PRI) Sub Scores

    The McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) is a validated 20 question instrument to quantify subjective pain and the scoring system yields a Pain Rating Index (PRI) score between Mild, Moderate or Severe. The questionnaire will be administered to the patient by study/clinical staff during follow up. Using these questionnaires, McGill Present Pain Intensity (PPI), Sensory, Affective, and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) sub scores will be calculated and reported. PPI and Visual Analogue Scale scores are on a scale of 0-10, Sensory scores are on a scale of 0-33, and Affective scores are on a scale of 0-12. For all McGill pain scores, a higher score indicates a worse outcome.

    Time frame: Collected 1, 3, 12 months (post hospital discharge)

  6. The Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOS-E) Score

    The Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) is a global scale for functional outcome that rates patient status into one of five categories: Dead, Vegetative State, Severe Disability, Moderate Disability or Good Recovery. The Extended GOS (GOSE) provides more detailed categorization into eight categories by subdividing the categories of severe disability, moderate disability and good recovery into a lower and upper category: 1. Death (D) 2. Vegetative state (VS) 3. Lower severe disability (SD -) 4. Upper severe disability (SD +) 5. Lower moderate disability ( MD -) 6. Upper moderate disability ( MD +) 7. Lower good recovery (GR -) 8. Upper good recovery (GR +) The questionnaire will be administered to the patient by study/clinical staff during follow up.

    Time frame: Collected 1, 3, 12 months post hospital discharge

  7. Short Form (SF-12) Health Survey Scale Summary Scores

    The 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey is a widely used composite score used to gauge overall health. The composite score is based on 8 domains scores contained in the SF-12 questionnaire, which will be administered to the patient by study/clinical staff during follow up. The composite score is split into two summary scores: the Physical Component Summary (PCS) and the Mental Component Summary (MCS). Both PCS and MCS are standardized scores on a 0-100 scale based on the US population, with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. Higher PCS or MCS scores indicate better health, while lower scores indicate worse health.

    Time frame: Collected 1, 3, 12 months (post hospital discharge)

  8. Length of Hospital Stay

    The length of hospital stay will be obtained from the patient's chart after discharge.

    Time frame: Up to 1 month from ED arrival

07

Results

Posted Apr 24, 2026

Participant flow

Patients were pre-screened by research staff to determine if the inclusion criteria were met and then discussed with investigators. If investigators approved them, they were approached by research staff for in-person consent at Stanford Healthcare (SHC).

Baseline
Participant flow — Baseline
MilestoneUltrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group AStandard-of-Care : Group B
Started2419
Completed2119
Not completed30
Withdrew: Screen failure30
1-month follow-up
Participant flow — 1-month follow-up
MilestoneUltrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group AStandard-of-Care : Group B
Started2119
Completed1615
Not completed54
Withdrew: Lost to follow-up53
Withdrew: Incarcerated01
3-month follow-up
Participant flow — 3-month follow-up
MilestoneUltrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group AStandard-of-Care : Group B
Started2118
Completed1412
Not completed76
Withdrew: Lost to follow-up76
12-month follow-up
Participant flow — 12-month follow-up
MilestoneUltrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group AStandard-of-Care : Group B
Started2118
Completed99
Not completed129
Withdrew: Incarcerated10
Withdrew: Lost to follow-up109
Withdrew: Death10

Outcome measures

PrimaryDaily Numeric Pain Score

Patients will be asked to verbalize their numeric pain score, measured on a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being no pain and 10 being the worst pain. Daily numeric pain score is collected on the day the patient is discharged from the hospital.

Time frame:
At time of discharge from hospital (up to 1 month)
Reported as:
Mean · score on a scale
Daily Numeric Pain Score
score on a scaleUltrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group AStandard-of-Care : Group B
Daily Numeric Pain Score7.48 ± 2.116.47 ± 2.97
Statistical analysis
  • Ultrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group A vs Standard-of-Care : Group B · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.2228 (The two-sided statistical significance level was 0.05.)Pooled t-test
SecondaryDaily Narcotic Equivalents

Morphine Milligram Equivalents (MME)

Time frame:
Collected at discharge (up to 1 month), 1, 3, 12 months post discharge
Reported as:
Median · MME/day
Daily Narcotic Equivalents
MME/dayUltrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group AStandard-of-Care : Group B
Discharge60 (15.65 to 94.50)15 (0 to 60)
1-month follow-up0 (0 to 10)0 (0 to 0)
3-month follow-up0 (0 to 0)0 (0 to 0)
12-month follow-up0 (0 to 0)0 (0 to 0)
Statistical analysis
  • Ultrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group A vs Standard-of-Care : Group B · Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) · p = 0.068 (The statistical significance level was 0.05.)
  • Ultrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group A vs Standard-of-Care : Group B · Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) · p = 0.201 (The statistical significance level was 0.05.)
  • Ultrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group A vs Standard-of-Care : Group B · Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) · p = 0.715 (The statistical significance level was 0.05.)
  • Ultrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group A vs Standard-of-Care : Group B · Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) · p = >0.99 (The statistical significance level was 0.05.)
SecondaryNumber of Patients With 30-day Mortality

Number of patients who died within 30 days of discharge, obtained from chart review.

Time frame:
1 month after hospital discharge
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Number of Patients With 30-day Mortality
ParticipantsUltrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group AStandard-of-Care : Group B
Number of Patients With 30-day Mortality00
Statistical analysis
  • Ultrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group A vs Standard-of-Care : Group B · Fisher Exact · p = 0 (The statistical significance level was 0.05. No patients died within 30 days, so p-value is undefined.)
SecondaryNeed for ICU Admission

Will be obtained from chart review after discharge

Time frame:
1 month after hospital discharge
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Need for ICU Admission
ParticipantsUltrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group AStandard-of-Care : Group B
Need for ICU Admission30
Statistical analysis
  • Ultrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group A vs Standard-of-Care : Group B · Fisher Exact · p = 0.233 (The statistical significance level was 0.05.)
SecondaryNumber of Patients With a 30-day Rib-specific Admission

Patients with at least one rib-specific readmission (delayed hemothorax, pneumothorax, pneumonia, pain) within 30 days of discharge

Time frame:
1 month after hospital discharge
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Number of Patients With a 30-day Rib-specific Admission
ParticipantsUltrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group AStandard-of-Care : Group B
Number of Patients With a 30-day Rib-specific Admission00
Statistical analysis
  • Ultrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group A vs Standard-of-Care : Group B ·
SecondaryThe McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) and Pain Rating Index (PRI) Sub Scores

The McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) is a validated 20 question instrument to quantify subjective pain and the scoring system yields a Pain Rating Index (PRI) score between Mild, Moderate or Severe. The questionnaire will be administered to the patient by study/clinical staff during follow up. Using these questionnaires, McGill Present Pain Intensity (PPI), Sensory, Affective, and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) sub scores will be calculated and reported. PPI and Visual Analogue Scale scores are on a scale of 0-10, Sensory scores are on a scale of 0-33, and Affective scores are on a scale of 0-12. For all McGill pain scores, a higher score indicates a worse outcome.

Time frame:
Collected 1, 3, 12 months (post hospital discharge)
Reported as:
Mean · scores on a scale
The McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) and Pain Rating Index (PRI) Sub Scores
scores on a scaleUltrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group AStandard-of-Care : Group B
PPI at 1-month follow-up3.19 ± 2.692.07 ± 2.25
Sensory at 1-month follow-up2.19 ± 1.601.53 ± 1.68
Affective at 1-month follow-up0.19 ± 0.540 ± 0
PPI at 3-month follow-up2.07 ± 2.760.92 ± 1.51
Sensory at 3-month follow-up1.64 ± 2.270.75 ± 1.22
Affective at 3-month follow-up0.50 ± 1.870 ± 0
PPI at 12-month follow-up0.67 ± 1.000.67 ± 1.32
Sensory at 12-month follow-up0.56 ± 1.330.22 ± 0.67
Affective at 12-month follow-up0 ± 00.11 ± 0.33
Statistical analysis
  • Ultrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group A vs Standard-of-Care : Group B · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.220 (The two-sided significance level was 0.05.)Pooled t-test
  • Ultrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group A vs Standard-of-Care : Group B · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.277 (The two-sided statistical significance level was 0.05.)Pooled t-test
  • Ultrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group A vs Standard-of-Care : Group B · Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) · p = 0.178 (The statistical significance level was 0.05.)
  • Ultrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group A vs Standard-of-Care : Group B · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.209 (The two-sided statistical significance level was 0.05.)Pooled t-test
  • Ultrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group A vs Standard-of-Care : Group B · t-test, 2 sided · p = 0.218 (The two-sided statistical significance level was 0.05.)Sattherwaite t-test
  • Ultrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group A vs Standard-of-Care : Group B · Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) · p = 0.396 (The statistical significance level was 0.05.)
  • Ultrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group A vs Standard-of-Care : Group B · t-test, 2 sided · p = > 0.99 (The two-sided statistical significance level was 0.05.)Pooled t-test
  • Ultrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group A vs Standard-of-Care : Group B · Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) · p = 0.512 (The two-sided statistical significance level was 0.05.)Pooled t-test
  • Ultrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group A vs Standard-of-Care : Group B · Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) · p = 0.374 (The statistical significance level was 0.05.)
  • Ultrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group A · Wilcoxon signed-rank · p = <0.001 (The statistical significance level was 0.05.)This analysis only included the 16 intervention participants with valid pain scores at discharge and 1-month follow-up.
  • Ultrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group A · Wilcoxon (signed-rank) · p = 0.191 (The significance level was 0.05.)This analysis only included the 14 participants who had a PPI score at 1-month and 3-month follow-up.
  • Ultrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group A · Wilcoxon (signed-rank) · p = 0.125 (The statistical significance level was 0.05.)This analysis only included the 8 patients who had PPI scores at 3-month and 12-month follow-ups.
  • Ultrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group A vs Standard-of-Care : Group B · Mixed Models Analysis · p = 0.578 (The two-sided statistical significance level was 0.05. The reported p-value was for the interaction between time and treatment group. The model was a random intercept and slope (RIAS) model.)
SecondaryThe Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOS-E) Score

The Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) is a global scale for functional outcome that rates patient status into one of five categories: Dead, Vegetative State, Severe Disability, Moderate Disability or Good Recovery. The Extended GOS (GOSE) provides more detailed categorization into eight categories by subdividing the categories of severe disability, moderate disability and good recovery into a lower and upper category: 1. Death (D) 2. Vegetative state (VS) 3. Lower severe disability (SD -) 4. Upper severe disability (SD +) 5. Lower moderate disability ( MD -) 6. Upper moderate disability ( MD +) 7. Lower good recovery (GR -) 8. Upper good recovery (GR +) The questionnaire will be administered to the patient by study/clinical staff during follow up.

Time frame:
Collected 1, 3, 12 months post hospital discharge
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
The Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOS-E) Score
ParticipantsUltrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group AStandard-of-Care : Group B
1-month follow-up — SD-10
1-month follow-up — MD-85
1-month follow-up — MD+12
1-month follow-up — GR-23
1-month follow-up — GR+45
3-month follow-up — SD-00
3-month follow-up — MD-32
3-month follow-up — MD+30
3-month follow-up — GR-12
3-month follow-up — GR+78
12-month follow-up — SD-00
12-month follow-up — MD-12
12-month follow-up — MD+00
12-month follow-up — GR-00
12-month follow-up — GR+87
Statistical analysis
  • Ultrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group A vs Standard-of-Care : Group B · Freeman-Halton · p = 0.784 (The statistical significance level was 0.05.)
  • Ultrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group A vs Standard-of-Care : Group B · Freeman-Halton · p = 0.456 (The statistical significance level was 0.05.)
  • Ultrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group A vs Standard-of-Care : Group B · Freeman-Halton · p = >0.99 (The statistical significance level was 0.05.)
SecondaryShort Form (SF-12) Health Survey Scale Summary Scores

The 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey is a widely used composite score used to gauge overall health. The composite score is based on 8 domains scores contained in the SF-12 questionnaire, which will be administered to the patient by study/clinical staff during follow up. The composite score is split into two summary scores: the Physical Component Summary (PCS) and the Mental Component Summary (MCS). Both PCS and MCS are standardized scores on a 0-100 scale based on the US population, with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. Higher PCS or MCS scores indicate better health, while lower scores indicate worse health.

Time frame:
Collected 1, 3, 12 months (post hospital discharge)
Reported as:
Median · scores on a scale
Short Form (SF-12) Health Survey Scale Summary Scores
scores on a scaleUltrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group AStandard-of-Care : Group B
SF-12 PCS at 1-month follow-up34.28 (23.01 to 42.30)32.04 (24.72 to 49.98)
SF-12 MCS at 1-month follow-up53.60 (48.08 to 57.38)51.74 (49.41 to 57.72)
SF-12 PCS at 3-month follow-up40.89 (28.38 to 54.18)54.55 (39.21 to 57.13)
SF-12 MCS at 3-month follow-up56.01 (47.10 to 59.59)51.82 (50.36 to 54.29)
SF-12 PCS at 12-month follow-up52.77 (40.70 to 55.19)53.13 (47.89 to 55.73)
SF-12 MCS at 12-month follow-up59.26 (52.51 to 61.15)53.47 (49.40 to 55.87)
Statistical analysis
  • Ultrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group A vs Standard-of-Care : Group B · Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) · p = 0.953 (The statistical significance level was 0.05.)
  • Ultrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group A vs Standard-of-Care : Group B · Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) · p = 0.921 (The two-sided statistical significance level was 0.05.)
  • Ultrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group A vs Standard-of-Care : Group B · Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) · p = 0.117 (The statistical significance level was 0.05.)
  • Ultrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group A vs Standard-of-Care : Group B · Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) · p = 0.292 (The statistical significance level was 0.05.)
  • Ultrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group A vs Standard-of-Care : Group B · Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) · p = 0.860 (The statistical significance level was 0.05.)
  • Ultrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group A vs Standard-of-Care : Group B · Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) · p = 0.077 (The statistical significance level was 0.05.)
SecondaryLength of Hospital Stay

The length of hospital stay will be obtained from the patient's chart after discharge.

Time frame:
Up to 1 month from ED arrival
Reported as:
Median · days
Length of Hospital Stay
daysUltrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group AStandard-of-Care : Group B
Length of Hospital Stay4 (3 to 7)3 (2 to 4)
Statistical analysis
  • Ultrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group A vs Standard-of-Care : Group B · Wilcoxon (Mann-Whitney) · p = 0.066 (The statistical significance level was 0.05.)

Adverse events

Collected over From inpatient enrollment in trial until the end of follow-up, 12 months later. Non-serious events are listed at a 0% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Standard-of-Care : Group B0/19 (0%)4/19 (21.1%)5/19 (26.3%)
Ultrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group A1/21 (4.8%)5/21 (23.8%)7/21 (33.3%)
Most frequent serious events
Most frequent serious events
EventStandard-of-Care : Group BUltrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group A
Readmission for Polytrauma Injury Follow UpGeneral disorders4/193/21
Chest Wall Related ReadmissionRespiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders0/192/21
Most frequent other events
Most frequent other events
EventStandard-of-Care : Group BUltrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group A
Pulmonary Adverse EventsRespiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders3/194/21
Tachycardia and atrial fibrillationCardiac disorders1/192/21
Gastrointestinal AEsGastrointestinal disorders1/191/21

Baseline characteristics

Age, Continuous
Age, Continuous(years)Ultrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group AStandard-of-Care : Group BTotal
Median53 (49 to 58)53 (37 to 60)53 (45 to 60)
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)Ultrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group AStandard-of-Care : Group BTotal
Female549
Male161531
Race (NIH/OMB)
Race (NIH/OMB)(Participants)Ultrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group AStandard-of-Care : Group BTotal
American Indian or Alaska Native213
Asian347
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander000
Black or African American000
White111223
More than one race000
Unknown or Not Reported527
Highest pain score in first 24 hours
Highest pain score in first 24 hours(score on a scale)Ultrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group AStandard-of-Care : Group BTotal
Mean8.76 ± 1.348.26 ± 1.288.53 ± 1.32
Daily opioid equivalents before intervention
Daily opioid equivalents before intervention(MME/day)Ultrasound-guided Cryoneurolysis: Group AStandard-of-Care : Group BTotal
Median96.5 (42 to 135.43)42.63 (26 to 147.50)59 (29.5 to 136.36)
08

Study locations

1 site
  • Stanford Hospital and Clinics
    Palo Alto, California 94305, United States
09

References and documents

Publications

  • Ziegler DW, Agarwal NN. The morbidity and mortality of rib fractures. J Trauma. 1994 Dec;37(6):975-9. doi: 10.1097/00005373-199412000-00018. PubMed 7996614 ↗
  • Flagel BT, Luchette FA, Reed RL, Esposito TJ, Davis KA, Santaniello JM, Gamelli RL. Half-a-dozen ribs: the breakpoint for mortality. Surgery. 2005 Oct;138(4):717-23; discussion 723-5. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2005.07.022. PubMed 16269301 ↗
  • Sharma OP, Oswanski MF, Jolly S, Lauer SK, Dressel R, Stombaugh HA. Perils of rib fractures. Am Surg. 2008 Apr;74(4):310-4. doi: 10.1177/000313480807400406. PubMed 18453294 ↗
  • Marasco S, Lee G, Summerhayes R, Fitzgerald M, Bailey M. Quality of life after major trauma with multiple rib fractures. Injury. 2015 Jan;46(1):61-5. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2014.06.014. Epub 2014 Jun 21. PubMed 25069400 ↗
  • Fabricant L, Ham B, Mullins R, Mayberry J. Prolonged pain and disability are common after rib fractures. Am J Surg. 2013 May;205(5):511-5; discusssion 515-6. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2012.12.007. PubMed 23592156 ↗
  • Gordy S, Fabricant L, Ham B, Mullins R, Mayberry J. The contribution of rib fractures to chronic pain and disability. Am J Surg. 2014 May;207(5):659-62; discussion 662-3. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2013.12.012. Epub 2014 Jan 31. PubMed 24612969 ↗
  • Liman ST, Kuzucu A, Tastepe AI, Ulasan GN, Topcu S. Chest injury due to blunt trauma. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2003 Mar;23(3):374-8. doi: 10.1016/s1010-7940(02)00813-8. PubMed 12614809 ↗
  • Witt CE, Bulger EM. Comprehensive approach to the management of the patient with multiple rib fractures: a review and introduction of a bundled rib fracture management protocol. Trauma Surg Acute Care Open. 2017 Jan 5;2(1):e000064. doi: 10.1136/tsaco-2016-000064. eCollection 2017. PubMed 29766081 ↗
  • Todd SR, McNally MM, Holcomb JB, Kozar RA, Kao LS, Gonzalez EA, Cocanour CS, Vercruysse GA, Lygas MH, Brasseaux BK, Moore FA. A multidisciplinary clinical pathway decreases rib fracture-associated infectious morbidity and mortality in high-risk trauma patients. Am J Surg. 2006 Dec;192(6):806-11. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2006.08.048. PubMed 17161098 ↗
  • de Jong MB, Kokke MC, Hietbrink F, Leenen LP. Surgical Management of Rib Fractures: Strategies and Literature Review. Scand J Surg. 2014 Jun;103(2):120-125. doi: 10.1177/1457496914531928. Epub 2014 Apr 29. PubMed 24782038 ↗
  • Shi HH, Esquivel M, Staudenmayer KL, Spain DA. Effects of mechanism of injury and patient age on outcomes in geriatric rib fracture patients. Trauma Surg Acute Care Open. 2017 Mar 16;2(1):e000074. doi: 10.1136/tsaco-2016-000074. eCollection 2017. PubMed 29766084 ↗
  • Tignanelli CJ, Rix A, Napolitano LM, Hemmila MR, Ma S, Kummerfeld E. Association Between Adherence to Evidence-Based Practices for Treatment of Patients With Traumatic Rib Fractures and Mortality Rates Among US Trauma Centers. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Mar 2;3(3):e201316. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.1316. PubMed 32215632 ↗
  • Pieracci FM, Majercik S, Ali-Osman F, Ang D, Doben A, Edwards JG, French B, Gasparri M, Marasco S, Minshall C, Sarani B, Tisol W, VanBoerum DH, White TW. Consensus statement: Surgical stabilization of rib fractures rib fracture colloquium clinical practice guidelines. Injury. 2017 Feb;48(2):307-321. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2016.11.026. Epub 2016 Nov 27. No abstract available. PubMed 27912931 ↗
  • Chen Zhu R, de Roulet A, Ogami T, Khariton K. Rib fixation in geriatric trauma: Mortality benefits for the most vulnerable patients. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2020 Jul;89(1):103-110. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000002666. PubMed 32176172 ↗
  • Ryb GE, Dischinger PC, Burch CA, Kerns TJ, Kufera J, Andersen D. Frailty and injury causation. Ann Adv Automot Med. 2012;56:175-81. PubMed 23169127 ↗
  • Galvagno SM Jr, Smith CE, Varon AJ, Hasenboehler EA, Sultan S, Shaefer G, To KB, Fox AD, Alley DE, Ditillo M, Joseph BA, Robinson BR, Haut ER. Pain management for blunt thoracic trauma: A joint practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma and Trauma Anesthesiology Society. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2016 Nov;81(5):936-951. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000001209. PubMed 27533913 ↗
  • Ilfeld BM. Continuous Peripheral Nerve Blocks: An Update of the Published Evidence and Comparison With Novel, Alternative Analgesic Modalities. Anesth Analg. 2017 Jan;124(1):308-335. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000001581. PubMed 27749354 ↗
  • Keller BA, Kabagambe SK, Becker JC, Chen YJ, Goodman LF, Clark-Wronski JM, Furukawa K, Stark RA, Rahm AL, Hirose S, Raff GW. Intercostal nerve cryoablation versus thoracic epidural catheters for postoperative analgesia following pectus excavatum repair: Preliminary outcomes in twenty-six cryoablation patients. J Pediatr Surg. 2016 Dec;51(12):2033-2038. doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2016.09.034. Epub 2016 Sep 28. PubMed 27745867 ↗
  • Harbaugh CM, Johnson KN, Kein CE, Jarboe MD, Hirschl RB, Geiger JD, Gadepalli SK. Comparing outcomes with thoracic epidural and intercostal nerve cryoablation after Nuss procedure. J Surg Res. 2018 Nov;231:217-223. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2018.05.048. Epub 2018 Jun 21. PubMed 30278932 ↗
  • Vossler JD, Zhao FZ. Intercostal nerve cryoablation for control of traumatic rib fracture pain: A case report. Trauma Case Rep. 2019 Jul 31;23:100229. doi: 10.1016/j.tcr.2019.100229. eCollection 2019 Oct. PubMed 31388539 ↗
  • Koethe Y, Mannes AJ, Wood BJ. Image-guided nerve cryoablation for post-thoracotomy pain syndrome. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2014 Jun;37(3):843-6. doi: 10.1007/s00270-013-0718-8. Epub 2013 Aug 17. PubMed 23954965 ↗
  • Byas-Smith MG, Gulati A. Ultrasound-guided intercostal nerve cryoablation. Anesth Analg. 2006 Oct;103(4):1033-5. doi: 10.1213/01.ane.0000237290.68166.c2. PubMed 17000825 ↗
  • Pieracci FM, Leasia K, Bauman Z, Eriksson EA, Lottenberg L, Majercik S, Powell L, Sarani B, Semon G, Thomas B, Zhao F, Dyke C, Doben AR. A multicenter, prospective, controlled clinical trial of surgical stabilization of rib fractures in patients with severe, nonflail fracture patterns (Chest Wall Injury Society NONFLAIL). J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2020 Feb;88(2):249-257. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000002559. PubMed 31804414 ↗
  • Melzack R. The McGill Pain Questionnaire: major properties and scoring methods. Pain. 1975 Sep;1(3):277-299. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(75)90044-5. PubMed 1235985 ↗
  • Marasco SF, Martin K, Niggemeyer L, Summerhayes R, Fitzgerald M, Bailey M. Impact of rib fixation on quality of life after major trauma with multiple rib fractures. Injury. 2019 Jan;50(1):119-124. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2018.11.005. Epub 2018 Nov 3. PubMed 30442372 ↗
  • Wilson JT, Pettigrew LE, Teasdale GM. Structured interviews for the Glasgow Outcome Scale and the extended Glasgow Outcome Scale: guidelines for their use. J Neurotrauma. 1998 Aug;15(8):573-85. doi: 10.1089/neu.1998.15.573. PubMed 9726257 ↗
  • Ware J Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996 Mar;34(3):220-33. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199603000-00003. PubMed 8628042 ↗
  • Forrester JD, Tung JT, Knight AW, Wang S, Myers AA, King JM, Earley MJ, Guthrie-Baker S, Flojo RB, Chen JT, Abreo AM; Stanford, California. Chilling the nerve, easing the pain?: A randomized clinical trial evaluating surgeon-administered bedside percutaneous cryoneurolysis for rib fracture pain. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2026 Jun 1;100(6):863-870. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000004885. Epub 2026 May 22. PubMed 41604277 ↗

Study documents

  • Study protocol · Jan 31, 2024
  • Statistical analysis plan · Jan 20, 2023

Documents are hosted by the registry — open the source record to download them.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

10

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Apr 24, 2026, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
11

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT05330611
Lead sponsor
Stanford University
Responsible party
Joseph Forrester (Assistant Professor of Surgery, Stanford University) — Principal investigator
First posted
Apr 15, 2022
Start date
Feb 21, 2023
Primary completion
Feb 2, 2025
Completion
Feb 2, 2026
Results posted
Apr 24, 2026
Last update
Apr 24, 2026

Study contacts

Joseph D Forrester, MD
principal investigator · Stanford University
Ariel Knight, MD
principal investigator · Stanford University

Oversight

FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
Yes
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Aug 2025. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion