Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Type | Description | Link |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-24 | Other Identifier | University of Health Sciences Gulhane Scientific Research Ethics Committee |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
This prospective, observational cohort study evaluates the long-term outcomes of Regenerative Peripheral Nerve Interface (RPNI) surgery in patients with major lower extremity amputations suffering from symptomatic neuromas. RPNI is a surgical technique where the transected nerve end is implanted into a free autologous muscle graft to serve as a physiological target for reinnervation. The study aims to objectively assess the reduction in mechanical hypersensitivity using Pressure Pain Threshold (PPT) measurements via a digital algometer. Additionally, it monitors subjective neuropathic pain levels, functional mobility, and prosthesis satisfaction over a 24-month follow-up period compared to pre-operative baselines.
Scientific Rationale and Background Traditional "passive" nerve management techniques (e.g., traction neurectomy, burying in muscle/bone) often fail to prevent neuroma recurrence due to the lack of a physiological target for regenerating axons. This study investigates the long-term efficacy of the "Regenerative Peripheral Nerve Interface (RPNI)" technique. RPNI is an "active" surgical approach where the transected nerve end is implanted into a free autologous muscle graft to promote physiological reinnervation, thereby preventing chaotic axonal sprouting and neuroma formation.
Diagnostic Protocol (The Clinical Triad) To ensure accurate participant selection and strictly exclude non-neuroma pathologies such as Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS), the study employs a standardized "Clinical Triad" protocol for all potential candidates:
Surgical Methodology (Standard of Care) Participants undergo the standard RPNI procedure as per the clinic's routine protocol.
Investigational Modules
Sample Size and Power Analysis Based on a priori power analysis using G*Power 3.1 software, the sample size was calculated referencing the pressure pain threshold (PPT) effect sizes reported in comparable literature (Kubiak et al., 2022). Assuming a large effect size (Cohen's d = 1.5), an alpha error of 0.05, and a power of 90% (1-beta), a minimum of 13 participants is required to detect statistical significance. To account for a potential 20% dropout rate over the 24-month follow-up, the target enrollment is set at 20 patients.
Statistical Analysis Plan Data analysis will be performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 26.0.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| RPNI Group | Adult patients (18-70 years) with unilateral major lower extremity amputations (transtibial or transfemoral) who are diagnosed with "Symptomatic Neuroma" confirmed by the clinical triad (DN4 score ≥4, positive Tinel sign, and diagnostic ultrasound). These patients are scheduled to undergo Regenerative Peripheral Nerve Interface (RPNI) surgery as part of the routine standard of care treatment protocol. |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regenerative Peripheral Nerve Interface (RPNI) Surgery | Procedure | The surgical procedure is standardized as follows to preserve the residual limb (stump) anatomy:
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Change in Pressure Pain Threshold (PPT) | Objective measurement of mechanical hypersensitivity at the neuroma site using a digital pressure algometer. The device applies increasing pressure in kg/cm² until the patient reports pain. Measurements are taken from the most tender point of the neuroma and a control point. Higher values indicate higher pain tolerance (improvement). | Baseline (Pre-op), 3, 6, 12, and 24 months post-operation. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Change in Pain Intensity (NRS) | Self-reported pain intensity measured by the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). Scale ranges from 0 (No pain) to 10 (Worst possible pain). | Baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. |
| Change in Neuropathic Pain Characteristics (DN4 Score) |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) | Weighted index to predict risk of death from comorbidities. Used to standardize baseline health status. | Baseline (Pre-op) only. |
| Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (ECI) | Index categorizing comorbidities based on ICD diagnosis codes to adjust for confounding factors. |
Inclusion Criteria:
Age: Adults aged 18 to 70 years.
Amputation Status: Unilateral major lower extremity amputation (Transtibial, Transfemoral, or Knee Disarticulation).
Radiological Baseline: Absence of Heterotopic Ossification (HO) in the residual limb, confirmed by pre-operative X-rays (Walter Reed Classification Grade 0).
Diagnosis: Confirmed diagnosis of "Symptomatic Neuroma" validated by the Clinical Triad:
Surgical Indication: Scheduled for RPNI surgery as part of the routine standard of care treatment protocol due to prosthesis intolerance or severe pain.
Consent: Willing and able to provide informed consent and attend follow-up visits.
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Adult patients with major lower extremity amputations presenting to the tertiary Orthopedics and Traumatology clinic with complaints of chronic residual limb pain, phantom limb pain, and prosthesis intolerance, who are diagnosed with symptomatic neuroma and scheduled for surgical intervention.
| Name | Role | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ahmet Burak Bilekli, MD, Associate Professor | Contact | +905326007020 | draburakbilekli@yahoo.com | |
| Muhammed Burak Polat, MD | Contact | +90 545 340 73 23 | draburakbilekli@yahoo.com |
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Ahmet Burak Bilekli, MD, Associate Professor | University of Health Sciences, GĂĽlhane Training and Research Hospital | Principal Investigator |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| University of Health Sciences, Gulhane Training and Research Hospital, Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology | Recruiting | Ankara | Ankara | 06018 | Turkey (TĂĽrkiye) |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 38681253 | Background | Yuan M, Gallo M, Gallo L, Huynh MH, McRae M, McRae MC, Thoma A, Coroneos CJ, Voineskos SH. Targeted Muscle Reinnervation and Regenerative Peripheral Nerve Interfaces Versus Standard Management in the Treatment of Limb Amputation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Plast Surg (Oakv). 2024 May;32(2):253-264. doi: 10.1177/22925503221107462. Epub 2022 Jun 16. | |
| 37489506 |
Not provided
Not provided
A formal plan for sharing individual participant data (IPD) has not yet been established. The investigators intend to evaluate the feasibility of sharing anonymized data upon reasonable request to the Principal Investigator following the publication of study results. However, a final decision will depend on strict compliance with local data protection regulations (KVKK) and institutional ethical approval mechanisms regarding data transfer. Currently, no specific public repository has been designated.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D009437 | Neuralgia |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D010523 | Peripheral Nervous System Diseases |
| D009468 | Neuromuscular Diseases |
| D009422 | Nervous System Diseases |
| D010146 | Pain |
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D013514 | Surgical Procedures, Operative |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
|
Assessment using the Douleur Neuropathique 4 (DN4) questionnaire. Total score ranges from 0 to 10. A score of 4 or higher indicates neuropathic pain. |
| Baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. |
| Prosthesis Satisfaction and Quality of Life (PEQ) | Evaluation using the Turkish validated version of the Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ). Scores are normalized to a 0-100 scale (Higher scores indicate better outcome). | Baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. |
| Change in Functional Mobility (TUG Test) | Timed Up and Go (TUG) test measuring the time (in seconds) required to stand, walk 3 meters, turn, walk back, and sit down. Lower time indicates better mobility. | Baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. |
| Daily Prosthesis Usage Time (DPUT) | Self-reported average duration of prosthesis usage per day, measured in hours/day. | Baseline, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. |
| Quality of Phantom Motor Execution (PME) | Assessment of the patient's ability to voluntarily execute specific movements with the phantom limb. Documenting the change from pre-operative baseline to post-operative reinnervation status. Rated on a 3-point ordinal scale: 0 (None): No contraction or movement sensation felt.
| Baseline (Pre-op), 3, 6, 12, and 24 months post-operation. |
| Severity of Viscero-Somatic Convergence Symptoms | Assessment of "Viscero-Somatic Convergence" (cross-talk between pelvic autonomic nerves and somatic nerves). Participants are queried about stump or phantom pain triggered by 1) Micturition, 2) Defecation, and 3) Sexual activity. Each item is rated on a 3-point ordinal scale (0=No, 1=Mild, 2=Severe). Total score ranges from 0 to 6. The goal is to observe if RPNI surgery reduces or eliminates these pre-existing cross-talk symptoms compared to baseline. | Baseline (Pre-op), 3, 6, 12, and 24 months post-operation. |
| Incidence of New Heterotopic Ossification (HO) | Radiological evaluation of new bone formation in soft tissues at the amputation stump using standard A/P and Lateral X-rays. Baseline Requirement: All participants must have a Grade 0 status at baseline to be eligible. Post-Op Grading: At 24 months, any new ossification is graded according to the Walter Reed Classification System:
| Baseline (Pre-op) and 24 months post-operation. |
| Baseline (Pre-op) only. |
| Watson CPN, Midha R, Ng DW. Causalgia: A Review of Nerve Resection, Amputation, Immunotherapy, and Amputated Limb CRPS II Pathology. Can J Neurol Sci. 2024 May;51(3):351-356. doi: 10.1017/cjn.2023.260. Epub 2023 Jul 25. |
| 40470247 | Background | Vaskov A, Wallace D, Desai K, Laidlaw A, Kung T, Gates D, Kemp S, Chestek C, Cederna P. A Robust Neuromuscular Interface to Restore Lost Function in People with Amputations. Res Sq [Preprint]. 2025 May 14:rs.3.rs-5989030. doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-5989030/v1. |
| 37400949 | Background | Senger JL, Thorkelsson A, Wang BY, Chan KM, Kemp SWP, Webber CA. Comparison of 2 Regenerative Peripheral Nerve Interface Techniques for the Treatment of Rat Neuroma Pain. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2024 Aug 1;154(2):346-349. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000010911. Epub 2023 Jul 4. |
| 39608134 | Background | Raasveld FV, Lehle CH, Hwang CD, Cross RE, Husseini JS, Simeone FJ, Newman ET, Tuano K, Lozano-Calderon SA, Valerio IL, Eberlin KR. The influence of nerve surgical techniques at time of amputation on the prevalence of heterotopic ossification in transtibial amputees. Injury. 2025 Feb;56(2):112047. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2024.112047. Epub 2024 Nov 20. |
| 38557950 | Background | Pettersen E, Sassu P, Pedrini FA, Granberg H, Reinholdt C, Breyer JM, Roche A, Hart A, Ladak A, Power HA, Leung M, Lo M, Valerio I, Eberlin KR, Ko J, Dumanian GA, Kung TA, Cederna P, Ortiz-Catalan M. Regenerative Peripheral Nerve Interface: Surgical Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial in Postamputation Pain. J Vis Exp. 2024 Mar 15;(205). doi: 10.3791/66378. |
| 37620955 | Background | Lin Z, Yu P, Chen Z, Li G. Regenerative peripheral nerve interface reduces the incidence of neuroma in the lower limbs after amputation: a retrospective study based on ultrasound. J Orthop Surg Res. 2023 Aug 24;18(1):619. doi: 10.1186/s13018-023-04116-6. |
| 35687412 | Background | Lans J, Groot OQ, Hazewinkel MHJ, Kaiser PB, Lozano-Calderon SA, Heng M, Valerio IL, Eberlin KR. Factors Related to Neuropathic Pain following Lower Extremity Amputation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2022 Aug 1;150(2):446-455. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000009334. Epub 2022 Jul 27. |
| 38348364 | Background | Best CS, Cederna PS, Kung TA. Regenerative Peripheral Nerve Interface (RPNI) Surgery for Mitigation of Neuroma and Postamputation Pain. JBJS Essent Surg Tech. 2024 Feb 12;14(1):e23.00009. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.ST.23.00009. eCollection 2024 Jan-Mar. |
| 39426252 | Background | Lauzon JC, Boyd KU, Dudek NL. What to expect following targeted muscle reinnervation/regenerative peripheral nerve interface: Pain outcomes in an amputee population. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2024 Dec;99:373-376. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2024.10.017. Epub 2024 Oct 13. |
| 29847613 | Background | Kubiak CA, Kemp SWP, Cederna PS. Regenerative Peripheral Nerve Interface for Management of Postamputation Neuroma. JAMA Surg. 2018 Jul 1;153(7):681-682. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2018.0864. No abstract available. |
| 33290586 | Background | Hu Y, Ursu DC, Sohasky RA, Sando IC, Ambani SLW, French ZP, Mays EA, Nedic A, Moon JD, Kung TA, Cederna PS, Kemp SWP, Urbanchek MG. Regenerative peripheral nerve interface free muscle graft mass and function. Muscle Nerve. 2021 Mar;63(3):421-429. doi: 10.1002/mus.27138. Epub 2020 Dec 20. |
| 34955394 | Background | de Lange JWD, Hundepool CA, Power DM, Rajaratnam V, Duraku LS, Zuidam JM. Prevention is better than cure: Surgical methods for neuropathic pain prevention following amputation - A systematic review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2022 Mar;75(3):948-959. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2021.11.076. Epub 2021 Dec 5. |
| D009461 |
| Neurologic Manifestations |
| D012816 | Signs and Symptoms |
| D013568 | Pathological Conditions, Signs and Symptoms |