NeuropathyNCT03624426
Detection and Prevention of Nerve Injury in Shoulder Arthroplasty Surgery
A study testing Automated Somatosensory Evoked Potential device (EPAD@) in people with Neuropathy and Nerve Injury, run by London Health Sciences Centre Research Institute OR Lawson Research Institute of St. Joseph's at 1 site in Canada.
Trial summary
Up to 5% of total shoulder arthroplasty patients experience transient or permanent nerve injury during surgery. In this study, we will monitor the nerve transmission of the patients' arm to detect whether the nerve is functioning normally. This techniques is called somatosensory evoked potential (SSEP) monitoring. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Neuropathy, Nerve Injury
- What is being tested?
- Automated Somatosensory Evoked Potential device (EPAD@)
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 200 participants
- Where
- 1 siteCanada
- Study dates
- 10 Sep 2018to 31 Mar 2020
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
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
- Adult elective patients undergoing total shoulder arthroplasty surgery using general anesthesia
Who cannot join
- Patients unable to perform complete neurological examination
- Patients who refuse to participate
- Unable to obtain informed consent.
- Patients who are contraindicated for (or unable to perform) SSEP monitoring
- Patients who have known pre-existing peripheral neuropathy or brachial plexus injury
- Patients who are contraindicated to brachial plexus block
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Detection and Prevention of Perioperative Nerve Injury Using Automated Somatosensory Evoked Potential Monitoring in Shoulder Arthroplasty Surgery
Up to 5% of total shoulder arthroplasty patients experience transient or permanent nerve injury during surgery. In this study, we will monitor the nerve transmission of the patients' arm to detect whether the nerve is functioning normally. This techniques is called somatosensory evoked potential (SSEP) monitoring. In this study, we will assess whether SSEP monitoring could detect nerve abnormalities, alerts the surgical team enabling optimize their surgical intervention and prevent surgical related nerve injury.
Read the detailed description
Perioperative PNI is a well-recognized but seriously under-investigated complication of general anesthesia. Arguably, such nerve injury may be viewed as being as devastating as spinal cord and cerebral injury, as the resultant functional disabilities may be very comparable.(1) Many such nerve injured patients require prolonged recovery and rehabilitation, while some result in long-term disability and/or litigation due to motor deficits and chronic pain.(2-5) In ASA Closed Claims Analysis PNI was the second most common cause of claims other than death.(6, 7) However, little progress has been made in the past three decades in developing a reliable intraoperative monitoring technique for early detection and prevention. SSEP monitoring is a potential option for preventing PNI. Abnormal SSEP is widely used as a surrogate outcome for PNI in research studies (8-11). Additionally, previous studies (12-17) investigating the use of SSEP for spinal cord or cerebral injury during neurosurgical procedures have incidentally found high incidences of abnormal SSEP (4-7%) due to mal-positioning that was corrected with repositioning; this suggested SSEP could be used to detect intraoperative PNI and that prompt intervention can reverse PNI. However, there have been no further prospective studies to evaluate the diagnostic value of SSEP, or its outcome benefit. This is largely because conventional SSEP is a bulky, expensive and labor-intensive monitoring modality, requiring a technologist for operation and interpretation.(18) Because of these budgetary and logistical limitations, as well as the relative lack of clinical evidence, SSEP is not performed routinely in most surgical centres solely for the purpose of PNI detection. The recent introduction of the Evoked Potential Assessment Device (EPAD®, SafeOp Surgical, Hunt Valley, MD) may be able to overcome these practical barriers. It is a novel, simplified, automated SSEP monitoring device (FDA approved). The key features of EPAD® are its compactness, ease of connectivity via Bluetooth, and its use of surface adhesive electrodes that remove the potential for needle-stick injuries. This device also incorporates an automated progressive signal optimization algorithm, several newly developed artifact rejection and electrocautery suppression technologies as well as an auto-interpretation diagnostic system. It eliminates the need for a designated technician and permits simplified and direct interpretation of the SSEP data for clinicians in the operating room. This device also enables display and storage of raw SSEP data permitting post hoc area-under-curve analysis. (Fig. 3) We have previously evaluated the clinical utility of this automated SSEP device in 33 cardiac surgical patients (19). This pilot study found that automated SSEP monitoring can be performed readily in a busy cardiac operating room. The raw signal quality is reliable and comparable to the conventional SSEP machine. These results indicate that this device is able to eliminate the practical challenges of performing SSEP monitoring and confirmed its feasibility for routine use.(REB# 104826) Surgical-related nerve injury during TSA is one of the highest risk subspecialties leading to postoperative upper limb peripheral neuropathy with reported incidences of 1-4% (20-22). A previous cohort study10, using motor evoked potential and EMG to evaluate the nerve injury during TSA, reported an exceedingly high incidence of intraoperative alerts (56.7% of patients). Importantly, 76.7% (23 of 30) of nerve alerts were reversed with repositioning of the patients' arm and removal of the retractor. Another cohort study11 in shoulder rotator cuff repair reported an even higher incidence of nerve alert (76.5%). Both studies were received Neer research awards from the Orthopedic Society, however neither study has informed the outcome benefit nor has assessed the relationship between cumulative injury, baseline nerve reserve and postoperative neuropathy. Accordingly, we propose to perform single blinded, superiority, parallel design, prospective randomized controlled study to assess the efficacy of the automated SSEP device in preventing PNI during TSA and explore the dose-response relationship of PNI.
- Conditions
- Neuropathy, Nerve Injury
- Being tested
- Automated Somatosensory Evoked Potential device (EPAD@)
- Keywords
- nerve monitoring, automated somatosensory evoked potential, nerve injury
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Automated Somatosensory Evoked Potential device (EPAD@)Device
After commencement of general anesthesia and during patient positioning, stimulating sensors will be applied to patient wrists and a recording sensor is applied at base of neck posteriorly (at C5 level), forehead and the bilateral wrists. The monitoring will be continued throughout the surgery.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Automated SSEP Monitored Group | Experimental | SSEP monitored group: When a nerve alert is signaled by the automated SSEP device, the surgeon will be informed with the aim to reverse the signal changes. The possible surgical interventions include repositioning the operative arm into a more neutral position, avoidance of excessive traction, removal of retractors, and using a smaller implant to avoid over-correction/traction. The actual intervention will depend on the possible mechanism of nerve injury and treated accordingly. Receives: Device: Automated Somatosensory Evoked Potential device (EPAD@) |
| Standard Group | No intervention | The automated SSEP device will be connected and will be blinded to the surgeon. The screens of the automated SSEP device will be covered by an opaque plastic bag and the alarms will be turned off. No intervention is planned for this group. |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Cumulative duration of abnormal SSEP changes
The cumulative duration (min) of abnormal SSEP changes in the operative arm.
Measured: duration of surgery
Secondary outcomes (3)
New-onset of peripheral neuropathy
New-onset peripheral neuropathy of the operative arm at postoperative 6 weeks. A thorough neurologic examination will be performed by an independent assessor before (after brachial plexus catheter inserted), and after the surgery (6 weeks). Any new neurological deficit at postoperative 6 weeks that identified by the independent outcomes assessor will be defined as a positive case.
Measured: 2 weeks, 6 weeks and 3 months
American shoulder and elbow surgeons standardized shoulder assessment form
ASES score is a 100 point scale that consists of two dimensions; pain and daily activity. The pain scale is worth 50 points and the daily activity is worth 50 points. 100 points describes being pain- free and able to complete daily activity with no issues while a score of 0 describes extreme pain and unable to complete daily activities.
Measured: 2 weeks, 6 weeks and 3 months
Quality of life measure
The EQ-5D-5L score consists of two components: a descriptive component to assess five dimensions of quality of life and an EQ visual analogue scale (VAS). The EQ-5D health state index is a single summary index, ranging from 0 to 1 (where 0 denotes death and 1 denotes full health/function), that is weighted to the country/region to describe the five dimensions of EQ-5D.
Measured: 2 weeks, 6 weeks and 3 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted10 Aug 2018
- Study start10 Sep 2018
- Primary completion30 Nov 2019
- Study completion31 Mar 2020
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (22)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for NeuropathyStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by London Health Sciences Centre Research Institute OR Lawson Research Institute of St. Joseph'sThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
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
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- 1:1 parallel, superiority study
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 200 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- London Health Sciences Centre Research Institute OR Lawson Research Institute of St. Joseph's
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Jason Chui, London Health Sciences Centre Research Institute OR Lawson Research Institute of St. Joseph's
- Investigators
- Jason Chui, MBChB, Principal investigator, University of Western Ontario, Canada
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03624426
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 108951
- Status last verified
- Dec 2020
- First submitted
- 7 Aug 2018
- Last updated
- 31 Dec 2020
- Results posted
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
Publications
Wojtkiewicz DM, Saunders J, Domeshek L, Novak CB, Kaskutas V, Mackinnon SE. Social impact of peripheral nerve injuries. Hand (N Y). 2015 Jun;10(2):161-7. doi: 10.1007/s11552-014-9692-0.
PubMed 26034424Grocott HP, Clark JA, Homi HM, Sharma A. "Other" neurologic complications after cardiac surgery. Semin Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2004 Sep;8(3):213-26. doi: 10.1177/108925320400800304.
PubMed 15375481Sharma AD, Parmley CL, Sreeram G, Grocott HP. Peripheral nerve injuries during cardiac surgery: risk factors, diagnosis, prognosis, and prevention. Anesth Analg. 2000 Dec;91(6):1358-69. doi: 10.1097/00000539-200012000-00010. No abstract available.
PubMed 11093980Tajiri O, Tateda T, Sugihara H, Yokoyama H, Nishikido O, Mukumoto C. [Brachial plexus neuropathy following open-heart surgery]. Masui. 2004 Apr;53(4):407-10. Japanese.
PubMed 15160668Fitzgerald M, McKelvey R. Nerve injury and neuropathic pain - A question of age. Exp Neurol. 2016 Jan;275 Pt 2:296-302. doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2015.07.013. Epub 2015 Jul 26.
PubMed 26220898Kroll DA, Caplan RA, Posner K, Ward RJ, Cheney FW. Nerve injury associated with anesthesia. Anesthesiology. 1990 Aug;73(2):202-7. doi: 10.1097/00000542-199008000-00002.
PubMed 2382845Cheney FW, Domino KB, Caplan RA, Posner KL. Nerve injury associated with anesthesia: a closed claims analysis. Anesthesiology. 1999 Apr;90(4):1062-9. doi: 10.1097/00000542-199904000-00020.
PubMed 10201678Jellish WS, Blakeman B, Warf P, Slogoff S. Somatosensory evoked potential monitoring used to compare the effect of three asymmetric sternal retractors on brachial plexus function. Anesth Analg. 1999 Feb;88(2):292-7. doi: 10.1097/00000539-199902000-00012.
PubMed 9972743Wilent B, Oppenheimer S. Utlility of nerve monitoring during shoulder arthroplasty. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology 2012; 29 (6): 536
Nagda SH, Rogers KJ, Sestokas AK, Getz CL, Ramsey ML, Glaser DL, Williams GR Jr. Neer Award 2005: Peripheral nerve function during shoulder arthroplasty using intraoperative nerve monitoring. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007 May-Jun;16(3 Suppl):S2-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2006.01.016. Epub 2006 Jul 26.
PubMed 17493556Delaney RA, Freehill MT, Janfaza DR, Vlassakov KV, Higgins LD, Warner JJ. 2014 Neer Award Paper: neuromonitoring the Latarjet procedure. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014 Oct;23(10):1473-80. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2014.04.003. Epub 2014 Jun 18.
PubMed 24950948Larson SJ, Gandhoke GS, Kaur J, et al. Incidence of position related neuropraxia in 4489 consecutive patients undergoing spine surgery. Role of SSEP monitoring? Journal of Neurosurgery 2016; 124 (4): A1182
Ying T, Wang X, Sun H, Tang Y, Yuan Y, Li S. Clinical Usefulness of Somatosensory Evoked Potentials for Detection of Peripheral Nerve and Brachial Plexus Injury Secondary to Malpositioning in Microvascular Decompression. J Clin Neurophysiol. 2015 Dec;32(6):512-5. doi: 10.1097/WNP.0000000000000212.
PubMed 26629760Araus-Galdos E, Delgado P, Villalain C, Martin-Velasco V, Castilla JM, Salazar A. Prevention of brachial plexus injury due to positioning of patient in spinal surgery. Value of multimodal intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM). Clinical Neurophysiology 2011; 122: S113
Chung I, Glow JA, Dimopoulos V, Walid MS, Smisson HF, Johnston KW, Robinson JS, Grigorian AA. Upper-limb somatosensory evoked potential monitoring in lumbosacral spine surgery: a prognostic marker for position-related ulnar nerve injury. Spine J. 2009 Apr;9(4):287-95. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2008.05.004. Epub 2008 Aug 5.
PubMed 18684675
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 31 Dec 2020. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Detection and Prevention of Perioperative Nerve Injury Using Automated Somatosensory Evoked Potential Monitoring in Shoulder Arthroplasty Surgery
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03624426
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 108951
- Conditions
- Neuropathy, Nerve Injury
- Keywords
- nerve monitoring, automated somatosensory evoked potential, nerve injury
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 200 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- London Health Sciences Centre Research Institute OR Lawson Research Institute of St. Joseph'sUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 10 Sep 2018 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 30 Nov 2019 (actual)
- Study completion
- 31 Mar 2020 (actual)
- First posted
- 10 Aug 2018 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Up to 5% of total shoulder arthroplasty patients experience transient or permanent nerve injury during surgery. In this study, we will monitor the nerve transmission of the patients' arm to detect whether the nerve is functioning normally. This techniques is called somatosensory evoked potential (SSEP) monitoring. In this study, we will assess whether SSEP monitoring could detect nerve abnormalities, alerts the surgical team enabling optimize their surgical intervention and prevent surgical related nerve injury.
Detailed description
Perioperative PNI is a well-recognized but seriously under-investigated complication of general anesthesia. Arguably, such nerve injury may be viewed as being as devastating as spinal cord and cerebral injury, as the resultant functional disabilities may be very comparable.(1) Many such nerve injured patients require prolonged recovery and rehabilitation, while some result in long-term disability and/or litigation due to motor deficits and chronic pain.(2-5) In ASA Closed Claims Analysis PNI was the second most common cause of claims other than death.(6, 7) However, little progress has been made in the past three decades in developing a reliable intraoperative monitoring technique for early detection and prevention. SSEP monitoring is a potential option for preventing PNI. Abnormal SSEP is widely used as a surrogate outcome for PNI in research studies (8-11). Additionally, previous studies (12-17) investigating the use of SSEP for spinal cord or cerebral injury during neurosurgical procedures have incidentally found high incidences of abnormal SSEP (4-7%) due to mal-positioning that was corrected with repositioning; this suggested SSEP could be used to detect intraoperative PNI and that prompt intervention can reverse PNI. However, there have been no further prospective studies to evaluate the diagnostic value of SSEP, or its outcome benefit. This is largely because conventional SSEP is a bulky, expensive and labor-intensive monitoring modality, requiring a technologist for operation and interpretation.(18) Because of these budgetary and logistical limitations, as well as the relative lack of clinical evidence, SSEP is not performed routinely in most surgical centres solely for the purpose of PNI detection. The recent introduction of the Evoked Potential Assessment Device (EPAD®, SafeOp Surgical, Hunt Valley, MD) may be able to overcome these practical barriers. It is a novel, simplified, automated SSEP monitoring device (FDA approved). The key features of EPAD® are its compactness, ease of connectivity via Bluetooth, and its use of surface adhesive electrodes that remove the potential for needle-stick injuries. This device also incorporates an automated progressive signal optimization algorithm, several newly developed artifact rejection and electrocautery suppression technologies as well as an auto-interpretation diagnostic system. It eliminates the need for a designated technician and permits simplified and direct interpretation of the SSEP data for clinicians in the operating room. This device also enables display and storage of raw SSEP data permitting post hoc area-under-curve analysis. (Fig. 3) We have previously evaluated the clinical utility of this automated SSEP device in 33 cardiac surgical patients (19). This pilot study found that automated SSEP monitoring can be performed readily in a busy cardiac operating room. The raw signal quality is reliable and comparable to the conventional SSEP machine. These results indicate that this device is able to eliminate the practical challenges of performing SSEP monitoring and confirmed its feasibility for routine use.(REB# 104826) Surgical-related nerve injury during TSA is one of the highest risk subspecialties leading to postoperative upper limb peripheral neuropathy with reported incidences of 1-4% (20-22). A previous cohort study10, using motor evoked potential and EMG to evaluate the nerve injury during TSA, reported an exceedingly high incidence of intraoperative alerts (56.7% of patients). Importantly, 76.7% (23 of 30) of nerve alerts were reversed with repositioning of the patients' arm and removal of the retractor. Another cohort study11 in shoulder rotator cuff repair reported an even higher incidence of nerve alert (76.5%). Both studies were received Neer research awards from the Orthopedic Society, however neither study has informed the outcome benefit nor has assessed the relationship between cumulative injury, baseline nerve reserve and postoperative neuropathy. Accordingly, we propose to perform single blinded, superiority, parallel design, prospective randomized controlled study to assess the efficacy of the automated SSEP device in preventing PNI during TSA and explore the dose-response relationship of PNI.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (participant, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- 1:1 parallel, superiority study
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Automated SSEP Monitored Group | Experimental | Device: Automated Somatosensory Evoked Potential device (EPAD@)SSEP monitored group: When a nerve alert is signaled by the automated SSEP device, the surgeon will be informed with the aim to reverse the signal changes. The possible surgical interventions include repositioning the operative arm into a more neutral position, avoidance of excessive traction, removal of retractors, and using a smaller implant to avoid over-correction/traction. The actual intervention will depend on the possible mechanism of nerve injury and treated accordingly. |
| Standard Group | No intervention | –The automated SSEP device will be connected and will be blinded to the surgeon. The screens of the automated SSEP device will be covered by an opaque plastic bag and the alarms will be turned off. No intervention is planned for this group. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Adult elective patients undergoing total shoulder arthroplasty surgery using general anesthesia
Key exclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Patients unable to perform complete neurological examination
- Patients who refuse to participate
- Unable to obtain informed consent.
- Patients who are contraindicated for (or unable to perform) SSEP monitoring
- Patients who have known pre-existing peripheral neuropathy or brachial plexus injury
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Automated Somatosensory Evoked Potential device (EPAD@)After commencement of general anesthesia and during patient positioning, stimulating sensors will be applied to patient wrists and a recording sensor is applied at base of neck posteriorly (at C5 level), forehead and the bilateral wrists. The monitoring will be continued throughout the surgery. | Device | Automated SSEP Monitored Group |
Primary outcome
Cumulative duration of abnormal SSEP changes
Time frame: duration of surgery
The cumulative duration (min) of abnormal SSEP changes in the operative arm.
3 secondary outcomes
New-onset of peripheral neuropathy
Time frame: 2 weeks, 6 weeks and 3 months
American shoulder and elbow surgeons standardized shoulder assessment form
Time frame: 2 weeks, 6 weeks and 3 months
Quality of life measure
Time frame: 2 weeks, 6 weeks and 3 months
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 31 Dec 2020.
- Background: PubMed 26034424Wojtkiewicz DM, Saunders J, Domeshek L, Novak CB, Kaskutas V, Mackinnon SE. Social impact of peripheral nerve injuries. Hand (N Y). 2015 Jun;10(2):161-7. doi: 10.1007/s11552-014-9692-0.
- Background: PubMed 15375481Grocott HP, Clark JA, Homi HM, Sharma A. "Other" neurologic complications after cardiac surgery. Semin Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2004 Sep;8(3):213-26. doi: 10.1177/108925320400800304.
- Background: PubMed 11093980Sharma AD, Parmley CL, Sreeram G, Grocott HP. Peripheral nerve injuries during cardiac surgery: risk factors, diagnosis, prognosis, and prevention. Anesth Analg. 2000 Dec;91(6):1358-69. doi: 10.1097/00000539-200012000-00010. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 15160668Tajiri O, Tateda T, Sugihara H, Yokoyama H, Nishikido O, Mukumoto C. [Brachial plexus neuropathy following open-heart surgery]. Masui. 2004 Apr;53(4):407-10. Japanese.
- Background: PubMed 26220898Fitzgerald M, McKelvey R. Nerve injury and neuropathic pain - A question of age. Exp Neurol. 2016 Jan;275 Pt 2:296-302. doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2015.07.013. Epub 2015 Jul 26.
- Background: PubMed 2382845Kroll DA, Caplan RA, Posner K, Ward RJ, Cheney FW. Nerve injury associated with anesthesia. Anesthesiology. 1990 Aug;73(2):202-7. doi: 10.1097/00000542-199008000-00002.
- Background: PubMed 10201678Cheney FW, Domino KB, Caplan RA, Posner KL. Nerve injury associated with anesthesia: a closed claims analysis. Anesthesiology. 1999 Apr;90(4):1062-9. doi: 10.1097/00000542-199904000-00020.
- Background: PubMed 9972743Jellish WS, Blakeman B, Warf P, Slogoff S. Somatosensory evoked potential monitoring used to compare the effect of three asymmetric sternal retractors on brachial plexus function. Anesth Analg. 1999 Feb;88(2):292-7. doi: 10.1097/00000539-199902000-00012.
- BackgroundWilent B, Oppenheimer S. Utlility of nerve monitoring during shoulder arthroplasty. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology 2012; 29 (6): 536
- Background: PubMed 17493556Nagda SH, Rogers KJ, Sestokas AK, Getz CL, Ramsey ML, Glaser DL, Williams GR Jr. Neer Award 2005: Peripheral nerve function during shoulder arthroplasty using intraoperative nerve monitoring. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007 May-Jun;16(3 Suppl):S2-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2006.01.016. Epub 2006 Jul 26.
- Background: PubMed 24950948Delaney RA, Freehill MT, Janfaza DR, Vlassakov KV, Higgins LD, Warner JJ. 2014 Neer Award Paper: neuromonitoring the Latarjet procedure. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014 Oct;23(10):1473-80. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2014.04.003. Epub 2014 Jun 18.
- BackgroundLarson SJ, Gandhoke GS, Kaur J, et al. Incidence of position related neuropraxia in 4489 consecutive patients undergoing spine surgery. Role of SSEP monitoring? Journal of Neurosurgery 2016; 124 (4): A1182
Related trials for Neuropathy
Active, not recruitingPhase 3
ENDOTHELION Study Group: Effect of Bosentan in NAION Patients
Ischemic Optic Neuropathy
Recruiting
PAW-Hydrogel for Chronic Wound Healing
Diabetic Foot Ulcer (DFU), Pressure Ulcer (PU)
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Postural Control and Balance Performance in Patients With Carpal Tunnel Syndrome
Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS), Postural Assessment
RecruitingPhase 2
Zanubritnib and Anti-MAG Neuropathy
Anti-MAG IgM-associated Demyelinating Polyneuropathy
Active, not recruiting
The AIUR Trial: Surgical Gloves to Prevent Peripheral Neuropathy
Chemotherapy-induced Peripheral Neuropathy
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Jason Chui, MBChB principal investigator
University of Western Ontario, Canada
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Automated Somatosensory Evoked Potential device (EPAD@) in people with Neuropathy and Nerve Injury, run by London Health Sciences Centre Research Institute OR Lawson Research Institute of St. Joseph's at 1 site in Canada.
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 1 inclusion and 6 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 31 Dec 2020. 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 Canada. 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?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
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?
Cumulative duration of abnormal SSEP changes (time frame: duration of surgery). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT03624426, which also lists 22 linked publications.
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 31 Dec 2020.