CClinicalTrials.gg
RecruitingNCT07605754TreatPAPUpdated May 26, 2026

Results of Nerve Surgery to Treat PostAmputation Pain

An observational study in Amputation Neuroma, sponsored by Leiden University Medical Center. Recruiting at 1 site in Netherlands. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-05-26.

Sponsored by Leiden University Medical Center · Observational

Study type
Observational
Model
Case-control
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
98
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Rationale: Postamputation pain (PAP) is frequently seen after amputations and is a severe lifelong disabling condition affecting quality of life (QoL). Different nerve surgical techniques are available to treat PAP if non-surgical treatment options are not sufficient. Multiple techniques have been described for treatment of symptomatic neuromas with varying results. Techniques described include traction neurectomy with/without implantation, nerve grafting, nerve capping, regenerative peripheral nerve interface, and targeted muscle reinnervation (TMR). In the Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), the most common techniques to treat painful neuromas include TMR and fascicular split (FS). TMR involves coaptating the transected mixed nerve to functional motor nerves, showing promising results in recent studies. FS is a technique closely related to neurectomy with implantation in a functional muscle. The difference is that with FS, the nerve is split into fascicles before implantation to allow for better distribution of nerve fibers. These techniques have not yet been compared. In this study, the investigators will compare both these techniques in a prospective setting for the treatment of PAP. The hypothesis is, that after 12 months, pain will be diminished and QoL will be increased in all patients versus the pre-operative status. There will be little to no difference in outcome between the surgical techniques used.

Objective: To evaluate limb pain in patients with intractable postamputation pain (residual limb pain and phantom limb pain) one year after nerve embedding surgery following the standardized workup of the LUMC.

Study design: Prospective study Study population: Patients 18 years of age or older, with a history of more than 6 months of intractable postamputation neuropathic limb pain, with no history of previous surgical intervention for pain treatment, referred to the Leiden Nerve Center.

Main study parameters/endpoints: The mean difference in pain scores for phantom limb pain and residual limb pain one year postoperatively. An average pain score from the past 7 days is used for PLP and RLP individually, on the 11-point (0-10) numerical rating scale (NRS). Additionally, the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Pain Behavior and Interference Questionnaire Short Forms (7a and 8a, respectively) are used one year postoperatively.

Nature and extent of the burden and risks associated with participation, benefit, and group relatedness: Both techniques are currently used in the Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC) and considered standard of care. The decision to perform either technique is solely dependent on the personal preference of the treating nerve surgeon. The results of this trial will improve the understanding of the treatment effect of both surgical techniques with a minimal patient burden. Participation requires patients to complete 3-4 non-invasive questionnaires about pain, quality of life, depression and anxiety, and mobility over a period of 2 years. The pre-operative (if applicable) and 12-month postoperative questionnaire will each take approximately 15 minutes to complete. The other two questionnaires at 18 and 24 months postoperative will take approximately 3-4 minutes to complete. Additionally, participants will fill out a daily questionnaire consisting of one to three questions about pain for 7 consecutive days at 12 months.

Read the detailed description

Postamputation pain (PAP) is a common sequela after major lower limb amputation, with an estimated incidence of 61%. PAP can be divided into two major categories: phantom limb pain (PLP) and residual limb pain (RLP, 'stump pain'). Both RLP and PLP are predominantly driven by the cut nerve endings during the amputation, that form terminal-neuromas. PAP is known to compromise prosthetic rehabilitation and profoundly diminishes the quality of life after amputation. When PAP develops, it is extremely difficult to treat. When non-surgical treatment fails, or side effects of medication dominate patients' lives, surgery for PAP is occasionally undertaken. Nerve surgical techniques that are then applied differ widely and lack any solid scientific base. In general, secondary surgery for PAP includes resection of the neuroma and transposition of the freshened nerve into a more favorable environment, such as muscle, bone, vessels, or fat. This nerve implantation technique has been described since 1918 to treat painful neuromas, showing good results ranging from 64 to 82% of pain relief. Based on the vast experience gained over a 25-year period in the Leiden Nerve Center in treating painful neuromas, an adaptation of the nerve implantation method was developed called the Fascicular Split (FS) technique to treat PAP. In the FS technique, after transecting the neuroma, the nerve is first split into multiple fascicles before implanting the nerve in the muscle. This allows for better distribution of the nerve in the muscle, resulting in less neuroma formation. The strength of FS is its relative simplicity, which is crucial for the wider implementation in routine care. Promising results were observed applying this technique in a small series (n=8) of patients with PAP yielding a long-lasting, life-changing effect in all but one patient. In some cases, FS was performed years after the initial amputation and after previous failed neuroma surgeries. Other nerve handling techniques to treat symptomatic neuroma include centro-central neurorrhaphy, End-to-Side neurorrhaphy, Graft to Nowhere, Targeted Muscle Reinnervation (TMR), and Regenerative Peripheral Nerve Interface. TMR is, after simply embedding the nerve in healthy tissue, the best studied and most promising technique to treat PAP. Several cohort studies and a recent randomized trial in secondary surgery for PAP show that a nerve surgical technique called Targeted Muscle Reinnervation (TMR) is effective in treating PAP. However, the main disadvantage of TMR is that it is a time-consuming procedure.

To date, there are no studies that compare both techniques for the treatment of PAP. The investigators believe that the treatment FS yields similar results to TMR. Moreover, in terms of clinical applicability, the FS technique is easier to learn, does not require extensive nerve surgical skills, and does not take much time to perform.

Few papers have been published on TMR as a treatment for postamputation pain. Despite issues with the validity of the articles, results of PLP and RLP were consistently in favor of TMR as a technique regarding all outcome measures, including intensity and interference with daily activities. FS, although not mentioned in the literature, has many similarities with nerve implantation, which showed similarly good results for the treatment of painful neuromas. However, there have been no studies to date that directly compare the two techniques.

PAP is a lifelong disabling condition profoundly affecting quality of life. Nerve embedding surgical techniques (simple, FS, and TMR) have proven to be effective to treat postamputation pain. Preliminary results show that simple embedding, TMR, and FS are potentially good techniques to treat invalidating PAP. However, no comparative studies have been performed.

The investigators hypothesize that FS will show equally good results compared to TMR in the surgical treatment of intractable PAP, reducing pain, and improving quality-of-life (QoL) and mobility.

The investigators propose a prospective observational cohort study evaluating outcomes after various nerve embedding techniques following a standardized selection protocol in patients with intractable post-amputation pain after a major limb amputation.

02

Conditions studied

  • Amputation Neuroma

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • Neuroma
  • Amputation
  • pain
  • Targeted Muscle Reinnervation
  • Nerve embedding
03

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No
Sampling method
Non-probability sample

Study population

Patients with intractable postamputation pain after a major extremity amputation (trans humeral, elbow disarticulation, forearm, transfemoral, knee disarticulation, and transtibial) undergoing surgical postamputation pain treatment in our center.

Inclusion criteria

  • Age older than or equal to 18 years
  • Intractable postamputation pain

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Cognitive impairment or delirium at the time of inclusion
  • Having received previous radiotherapy on the affected limb
  • Patients who are unable to comprehend the informed consent form or the questionnaires used in the current study
  • Unfit for general anesthesia
04

Study design

Observational model
Case-control
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
98 participants (estimated)
Patient registry
No

Groups and cohorts

  • Control: Targeted Muscle Reinnervation (TMR)

    Patients with a symptomatic neuroma requiring surgical intervention

    Procedure: Targeted Muscle Reinnervation

  • Intervention: Fascicular split

    Patients with a symptomatic neuroma requiring surgical intervention

    Procedure: Fascicular split

Interventions

  • ProcedureFascicular split

    Fasicular split surgical technique: 1. Painful nerve is identified and the neuroma is resected. 2. Split the nerve into its constituent multiple nerve fascicles 3. Create a deep muscle pocket for each individual fascicle 4. Plant each fascicle into a separate muscle compartment and fixate the fascicle in place with tissue glue.

    Also known as: nerve embedding

  • ProcedureTargeted Muscle Reinnervation

    Targeted Muscle Reinnervation surgical technique 1. Painful nerve is identified and the neuroma is resected. 2. A nerve stimulator is used to identify functional motor nerve branches. Near the point where the motor branch enters the muscle, the motor nerve branch is transected 3. End-to-end nerve coaptation is performed between the amputated nerve and the transected motor nerve branch.

05

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Phantom limb pain measured on the 11-point (0-10) numeric rating scale.

    A primary endpoint is the mean phantom limb pain experience one year postoperatively. This will be measured on the 11-point (0-10) numeric rating scale over 7 consecutive days. A higher score indicates worse pain.

    Time frame: 1 year postoperatively

  2. Residual limb pain measured on the 11-point numeric rating scale

    A primary endpoint is the mean residual limb pain experience one year postoperatively. This will be measured on the 11-point (0-10) numeric rating scale over 7 consecutive days. A higher score indicates worse pain.

    Time frame: 1 year postoperatively

  3. PROMIS pain behavior short form 7a

    PROMIS pain behavior short form 7a in Dutch-Flemish

    Time frame: 1 year postoperatively

  4. PROMIS pain interference short form 8a

    PROMIS pain interference short form 8a in Dutch-Flemish

    Time frame: 1 year postoperatively

Secondary outcomes

  1. Phantom limb pain using the 11-point (0-10) numeric rating scale

    Time frame: From enrolment until 24 months post-operatively

  2. Residual limb pain using the 11-point (0-10) numeric rating scale

    Time frame: From enrolment until 24 months postoperatively

  3. PROMIS pain behavior 7a short form in Dutch-Flemish

    Time frame: From enrolment until 24 months postoperatively

  4. PROMIS pain interference 8a short form in Dutch-Flemish

    Time frame: From enrolment until 24 months postoperatively

  5. Quality of life (EQ-5D-5L)

    Time frame: From enrolment until 24 months postoperatively

  6. Pain type using the ICAN localization map

    Time frame: From enrolment until 12 months postoperatively

  7. Neuropathic pain using the PainDetect

    Time frame: From enrolment until 12 months postoperatively

  8. Hospital anxiety and depression using the HADS

    Time frame: From enrolment until 12 months postoperatively

  9. Perceived treatment effect using the GPE-DV

    Time frame: at 12 months postoperativley

  10. Prosthetic rehabilitation using the PLUS-M

    Time frame: From enrolment until 12 months postoperatively

  11. Changes in sensory quality in the amputated stump using quantitative sensory testing (QST)

    Time frame: at enrolment until 12 months postoperative

  12. Quantified neuroma perfusion using near-infrared fluorescence using indocyanine green

    Patients will receive near-infrared (NIR) fluorescence imaging with indocyanine green (ICG) during the surgery. ICG is a fluorescent dye that binds to plasma proteins and emits light when excited by near-infrared wavelengths. After intravenous injection, the dye circulates rapidly, allowing surgeons to assess blood flow to tissue of interest. This method has very good safety profile and has been used extensively in gastro-intestinal, reconstructive, vascular and neurosurgery. This study aims to use quantified ICG NIR fluorescence imaging to evaluate perfusion patterns of symptomatic and asymptomatic neuromas after amputation.

    Time frame: Peri-operatively

  13. Surgery duration

    in minutes

    Time frame: Perioperatively

  14. Length of hospital stay

    Amount of days patients spent in hospital post surgery

    Time frame: From the date of surgery to the date of discharge from the hospital, up to 1 year post surgery

  15. Adverse events

    i.e., infection, rebleed, with Clavien-Dindo scores

    Time frame: until 30 days postoperatively

  16. Medication Quantification Scale

    Phantom limb pain, residual limb pain, the PROMIS pain behavior 7a short form, and the PROMIS interference 8a short form will be corrected for pain medication use, using the medication quantification scale. A higher score indicates more pain medication use.

    Time frame: until 24 months postoperatively

06

Study locations

1 of 1 sites recruiting
  • Leiden University Medical Center
    Leiden, South Holland 2333 ZA, Netherlands
    Recruiting
07

References and documents

Publications

  • Anné C, de Laat FA, Hafner BJ, et al. "Dutch-Flemish translation of the Prosthetic Limb Users Survey of Mobility (PLUS-M)". Poster tijdens het PROMIS congres Praag. 2022.
  • Hudak PL, Wright JG. The characteristics of patient satisfaction measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Dec 15;25(24):3167-77. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00012. PubMed 11124733 ↗
  • Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983 Jun;67(6):361-70. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x. PubMed 6880820 ↗
  • Freynhagen R, Baron R, Gockel U, Tolle TR. painDETECT: a new screening questionnaire to identify neuropathic components in patients with back pain. Curr Med Res Opin. 2006 Oct;22(10):1911-20. doi: 10.1185/030079906X132488. PubMed 17022849 ↗
  • Gomez-Eslava B, Raasveld FV, Hoftiezer YAJ, McCarty JC, Daddario JL, Valerio IL, Heng M, Eberlin KR. Pain Sketches to Predict Pain following Primary Targeted Muscle Reinnervation in Amputees. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2024 May 1;153(5):1162-1171. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000010762. Epub 2023 May 26. PubMed 37252909 ↗
  • Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, Bonsel G, Badia X. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011 Dec;20(10):1727-36. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x. Epub 2011 Apr 9. PubMed 21479777 ↗
  • Harden RN, Weinland SR, Remble TA, Houle TT, Colio S, Steedman S, Kee WG; American Pain Society Physicians. Medication Quantification Scale Version III: update in medication classes and revised detriment weights by survey of American Pain Society Physicians. J Pain. 2005 Jun;6(6):364-71. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2005.01.350. PubMed 15943958 ↗
  • Terwee CB, Roorda LD, de Vet HC, Dekker J, Westhovens R, van Leeuwen J, Cella D, Correia H, Arnold B, Perez B, Boers M. Dutch-Flemish translation of 17 item banks from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS). Qual Life Res. 2014 Aug;23(6):1733-41. doi: 10.1007/s11136-013-0611-6. Epub 2014 Jan 9. PubMed 24402179 ↗
  • Schafer B, Freund G, Orr J, Nolte K, Weis J, Bahm J, Beier JP. Technique and Expected Benefit of Intraoperative Perfusion Imaging of Peripheral Nerves. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2024 Nov 5;12(11):e6281. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000006281. eCollection 2024 Nov. PubMed 39507316 ↗
  • O'Brien AL, Jordan SW, West JM, Mioton LM, Dumanian GA, Valerio IL. Targeted Muscle Reinnervation at the Time of Upper-Extremity Amputation for the Treatment of Pain Severity and Symptoms. J Hand Surg Am. 2021 Jan;46(1):72.e1-72.e10. doi: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2020.08.014. Epub 2020 Oct 22. PubMed 33268236 ↗
  • Berger LE, Shin S, Haffner ZK, Huffman SS, Spoer DL, Sayyed AA, Franzoni G, Bekeny JC, Attinger CE, Kleiber GM. The application of targeted muscle reinnervation in lower extremity amputations: A systematic review. Microsurgery. 2023 Oct;43(7):736-747. doi: 10.1002/micr.31030. Epub 2023 Mar 2. PubMed 36864779 ↗
  • Farrar JT, Young JP Jr, LaMoreaux L, Werth JL, Poole MR. Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale. Pain. 2001 Nov;94(2):149-158. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3959(01)00349-9. PubMed 11690728 ↗
  • Kang NV, Woollard A, Michno DA, Al-Ajam Y, Tan J, Hansen E. A consecutive series of targeted muscle reinnervation (TMR) cases for relief of neuroma and phantom limb pain: UK perspective. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2022 Mar;75(3):960-969. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2021.09.068. Epub 2021 Oct 22. PubMed 34840118 ↗
  • Mioton LM, Dumanian GA, Shah N, Qiu CS, Ertl WJ, Potter BK, Souza JM, Valerio IL, Ko JH, Jordan SW. Targeted Muscle Reinnervation Improves Residual Limb Pain, Phantom Limb Pain, and Limb Function: A Prospective Study of 33 Major Limb Amputees. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2020 Sep;478(9):2161-2167. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001323. PubMed 32452928 ↗
  • Dumanian GA, Potter BK, Mioton LM, Ko JH, Cheesborough JE, Souza JM, Ertl WJ, Tintle SM, Nanos GP, Valerio IL, Kuiken TA, Apkarian AV, Porter K, Jordan SW. Targeted Muscle Reinnervation Treats Neuroma and Phantom Pain in Major Limb Amputees: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Ann Surg. 2019 Aug;270(2):238-246. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003088. PubMed 30371518 ↗
  • Dellon AL, Mackinnon SE. Treatment of the painful neuroma by neuroma resection and muscle implantation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1986 Mar;77(3):427-38. doi: 10.1097/00006534-198603000-00016. PubMed 2937074 ↗
  • Ives GC, Kung TA, Nghiem BT, Ursu DC, Brown DL, Cederna PS, Kemp SWP. Current State of the Surgical Treatment of Terminal Neuromas. Neurosurgery. 2018 Sep 1;83(3):354-364. doi: 10.1093/neuros/nyx500. PubMed 29053875 ↗
  • Poyntz SA, Hacking NM, Dalal M, Fowler S. Peripheral Interventions for Painful Stump Neuromas of the Lower Limb: A Systematic Review. Clin J Pain. 2018 Mar;34(3):285-295. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000000533. PubMed 28678059 ↗
  • Nederlandse Vereniging van Revalidatieartsen. Amputatie en prothesiologie onderste extremiteit. Available from: https://richtlijnendatabase.nl/richtlijn/amputatie_prothesiologie_onderste_extremiteit/startpagina_-_amputatie_en_prothesiologie_onderste_extremiteit.html.
  • Schwingler PM, Moman RN, Hunt C, Ashmore Z, Ogletree SP, Uvodich ME, Murad MH, Hooten WM. Prevalence of postamputation pain and its subtypes: a meta-analysis with meta-regression. Pain Rep. 2021 May 4;6(1):e918. doi: 10.1097/PR9.0000000000000918. eCollection 2021. PubMed 33981935 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Undecided — Undecided

08

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT07605754
Lead sponsor
Leiden University Medical Center
Responsible party
jlgroen (MD, PhD, Leiden University Medical Center) — Principal investigator
First posted
May 26, 2026
Start date
Aug 14, 2025
Primary completion
Aug 20, 2028 (estimated)
Completion
Aug 20, 2029 (estimated)
Last update
May 26, 2026

Study contacts

Guus A.H. Tendijck, MD
Contact
g.tendijck@hotmail.com
+316 21320645
Justus L. Groen, MD, PhD
principal investigator · Leiden University Medical Center

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Interested in this study?

Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.

Contact study team

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