AzTrials
AzTrials

Pain ManagementNAP-C/RNCT07416448

Neuroma-Associated Pain Management After Combat-Related Trauma in Ukraine

A study testing cryoablation and Radiofrequency ablation alone in people with Pain Management and Quality of Life, run by Ukrainian Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Therapy at 1 site in Ukraine.

Completed

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

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

This multicenter interventional study in Ukraine is designed to compare the effectiveness of cryoablation and radiofrequency ablation in managing neuroma-associated pain following combat-related trauma. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 years and older
Conditions the study is for
Pain Management, Quality of Life, Neuroma
What is being tested?
cryoablation and Radiofrequency ablation alone
Type of treatment
Surgery or procedure
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
100 participants
Where
1 siteUkraine
Study dates
5 Feb 2026to 5 Feb 2026
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

  • Age 18 years or older
  • Sustained combat-related trauma
  • Clinically significant neuroma-associated pain localized to a peripheral nerve or neuroma
  • Moderate to severe pain (score ≥ 4 on a standardized numeric pain rating scale)
  • Medically stable and able to undergo a percutaneous interventional procedure
  • Able to understand and provide written informed consent
Show all 9Show fewer
  • Willing and able to comply with study procedures, including follow-up assessments and patient-reported outcome measures
  • May be receiving standard analgesic therapy, including opioids, if usage can be monitored
  • No planned surgical intervention at the neuroma site during the study period that could interfere with pain assessment

Who cannot join

  • Age under 18 years
  • Pregnant or breastfeeding
  • Severe uncontrolled medical comorbidities that preclude safe participation
  • Active infection at or near the proposed intervention site
  • Known coagulopathy or use of anticoagulants that cannot be safely withheld
  • Previous cryoablation or radiofrequency ablation at the target neuroma within the past 6 months
Show all 9Show fewer
  • Inability to provide informed consent or comply with study procedures
  • Participation in another interventional clinical trial that could interfere with study outcomes
  • Known allergy or intolerance to materials used during the procedures

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

Ukraine1 site
  • Communal enterprise "Yuri Semenyuk Rivne Regional Clinical Hospital" of Rivne Regional Council

    Rivne, 33003

Other trials in Ukraine

About this study

Official title: Comprehensive Multicenter Study on the Management of Neuroma-Associated Pain Following Combat-Related Trauma in Ukraine

This multicenter interventional study in Ukraine is designed to compare the effectiveness of cryoablation and radiofrequency ablation in managing neuroma-associated pain following combat-related trauma. Adult patients with clinically significant neuropathic pain caused by neuromas will be randomly assigned to receive either image-guided cryoablation or radiofrequency ablation of the affected nerve. Cryoablation uses controlled cold temperatures to temporarily disrupt nerve conduction, while radiofrequency ablation uses thermal energy to modulate nerve function. Both interventions are minimally invasive and performed under image guidance. The study will evaluate changes in pain intensity, opioid consumption, functional outcomes, and patient-reported measures at predefined time points following the procedure. This research aims to provide evidence on which intervention is more effective in reducing pain, improving function, and minimizing the need for opioid medications in patients with combat-related neuroma pain.

Read the detailed description

This multicenter interventional study is designed to compare the safety and effectiveness of cryoablation and radiofrequency ablation in the management of neuroma-associated pain following combat-related trauma in adult patients treated at tertiary care centers in Vinnytsia, Rivne, and Lviv, Ukraine. Neuroma-associated pain is a neuropathic pain condition that often develops after peripheral nerve injury and is characterized by chronic or acute pain that can severely limit function, reduce quality of life, and increase reliance on opioid and other analgesic medications. Despite advances in pain management, there is limited high-quality comparative evidence regarding the relative benefits and risks of cryoablation versus radiofrequency ablation for acute and subacute neuroma pain, particularly in patients recovering from combat-related trauma.

Cryoablation and radiofrequency ablation are minimally invasive, image-guided procedures that target peripheral nerves to reduce or block pain signal transmission. Cryoablation involves the application of extremely low temperatures to the neuroma or affected nerve, producing a temporary and reversible interruption of nerve conduction while preserving overall nerve structure. Radiofrequency ablation delivers controlled thermal energy to the target nerve, modulating nerve function and reducing pain signaling. Both interventions are performed percutaneously under image guidance, and the number of treated nerve levels is determined based on the anatomical distribution of the neuroma and clinical assessment. These interventions are delivered in addition to standard trauma care and supportive therapy according to institutional protocols.

The study adopts a randomized, parallel assignment design. Eligible adult patients presenting with neuroma-associated pain following combat-related trauma are randomized to receive either cryoablation or radiofrequency ablation. Pain intensity is measured using validated scales at baseline and at predefined follow-up time points to capture both immediate and short-term effects of each intervention. Opioid and other analgesic use is recorded and standardized to allow comparisons between treatment arms. Pulmonary and functional measures, including incentive spirometry and pain provoked by movement or specific activities, are assessed where clinically relevant to evaluate the functional impact of pain reduction. Mechanical sensitivity of the affected area is measured using Von Frey testing to provide objective assessment of nociceptive changes. Patient-reported outcomes, including the LANS scale for neuropathic pain characteristics, the McGill Pain Questionnaire for qualitative pain assessment, and the PHQ-9 for depressive symptoms, are also collected to assess the multidimensional impact of pain and the effect of interventions on overall well-being.

Demographic, clinical, and procedural variables are collected, including age, sex, body mass index, baseline pain intensity, neuroma location, and the number of nerve levels treated. These data allow for exploratory and adjusted analyses to identify factors associated with treatment response and clinically meaningful pain reduction. Data are entered into standardized electronic case report forms to ensure consistency and data quality across all participating centers.

Safety monitoring is conducted throughout the study period. Both cryoablation and radiofrequency ablation are performed by clinicians experienced in interventional pain management, following established procedural safety protocols. Adverse events, including procedural complications and clinically significant changes in neurological function, are systematically documented and reviewed. The primary focus of safety assessment is on immediate and short-term complications related to the interventions, while longer-term follow-up may include monitoring for delayed adverse events associated with nerve-targeting procedures.

The study is expected to generate clinically relevant evidence comparing the analgesic efficacy, functional impact, opioid-sparing potential, and safety profile of cryoablation versus radiofrequency ablation for neuroma-associated pain following combat-related trauma. Results will provide guidance for clinicians in selecting appropriate interventions for this patient population, support evidence-based pain management strategies, and contribute to improving patient outcomes by optimizing functional recovery and minimizing reliance on systemic analgesics.

Being tested
cryoablation, Radiofrequency ablation alone
Keywords
Neuroma Pain, Combat-Related Trauma, Cryoablation, Radiofrequency Ablation, Neuropathic Pain
Medical subject headings
Agnosia, Neuroma, Neuralgia, Hypesthesia

What participants receive

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

  • cryoablationProcedure or surgery

    Participants in this arm will receive image-guided cryoablation of the neuroma or affected peripheral nerve. The procedure involves percutaneous application of controlled low temperatures to temporarily interrupt nerve conduction while preserving overall nerve structure. The number of treated nerve levels is determined based on the location and extent of the neuroma. Cryoablation is performed in addition to standard trauma care and supportive therapy. Pain intensity, opioid consumption, functional outcomes, and patient-reported measures will be recorded before and after the procedure to evaluate efficacy and safety.

  • Radiofrequency ablation aloneProcedure or surgery

    Participants in this arm will receive image-guided radiofrequency ablation of the neuroma or affected peripheral nerve. The procedure involves percutaneous delivery of controlled thermal energy to modulate nerve function and reduce pain signal transmission. The number of treated nerve levels is determined based on the location and extent of the neuroma. Radiofrequency ablation is administered in addition to standard trauma care and supportive therapy. Pain intensity, opioid consumption, functional outcomes, and patient-reported measures will be recorded before and after the procedure to evaluate efficacy and safety.

Study groups in NCT07416448
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
CryoablationActive comparatorParticipants in this arm will receive image-guided cryoablation of the neuroma or affected peripheral nerve. The procedure involves percutaneous application of controlled low temperatures to temporarily interrupt nerve conduction while preserving overall nerve structure. The number of treated nerve levels is determined based on the location and extent of the neuroma. Cryoablation is performed in addition to standard trauma care and supportive therapy. Pain intensity, opioid consumption, functional outcomes, and patient-reported measures will be recorded before and after the procedure to evaluate efficacy and safety.
Receives: Procedure: Radiofrequency ablation alone
Radiofrequency AblationActive comparatorParticipants in this arm will receive image-guided radiofrequency ablation of the neuroma or affected peripheral nerve. The procedure involves percutaneous delivery of controlled thermal energy to modulate nerve function and reduce pain signal transmission. The number of treated nerve levels is determined based on the location and extent of the neuroma. Radiofrequency ablation is administered in addition to standard trauma care and supportive therapy. Pain intensity, opioid consumption, functional outcomes, and patient-reported measures will be recorded before and after the procedure to evaluate efficacy and safety.
Receives: Procedure: cryoablation

What is being measured

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

  1. Change in Pain Intensity Measured by Verbal Numeric Rating Scale (VNRS)

    Pain intensity is assessed using the Verbal Numeric Rating Scale (VNRS), a validated 11-point scale ranging from 0 to 10, where 0 indicates "no pain" and 10 indicates "worst imaginable pain." Higher scores indicate greater pain intensity. Change in pain intensity is evaluated by comparing VNRS scores across predefined time points.

    Measured: 4, 24, and 72 hours post-procedure.

Secondary outcomes (11)
  1. Mechanical pain threshold

    Assess mechanical pain threshold changes using Von Frey test

    Measured: Before and 72 hours after

  2. Opioid consumption

    Compare opioid consumption

    Measured: before and 72 hours after ablation

  3. Evaluate quality of life and functional outcomes with Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs LANS

    Quality of life and functional outcomes were evaluated using the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (LANSS) pain scale. LANSS is a validated instrument designed to identify and quantify neuropathic pain and its functional impact. The scale consists of symptom-based questions and sensory examination items, with a total score ranging from 0 to 24. A score of 0 indicates no neuropathic pain features, while a score of 24 indicates the maximum severity of neuropathic pain features. Higher LANSS scores reflect greater neuropathic pain burden, increased functional impairment, and poorer quality of life, representing a worse outcome. Changes in LANSS scores were assessed over the study period to evaluate treatment-related effects.

    Measured: 6 month after

  4. Quality of life and functional outcomes were evaluated using the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ)

    Quality of life and functional outcomes were evaluated using the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), a validated multidimensional instrument assessing the sensory, affective, and evaluative components of pain and their impact on daily functioning. The total Pain Rating Index (PRI) derived from the MPQ ranges from 0 to 78, where 0 indicates no pain-related impact and 78 indicates the maximum pain-related impact. Higher scores represent greater pain intensity and functional impairment, corresponding to poorer quality of life and a worse outcome. Changes in MPQ scores were assessed over the study period to evaluate treatment-related effects.

    Measured: 6 mounth

  5. Quality of life and functional outcomes were evaluated using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9)

    Quality of life and functional outcomes were evaluated using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), a validated self-reported instrument used to assess the severity of depressive symptoms and their impact on daily functioning and overall quality of life. The PHQ-9 total score ranges from 0 to 27, where 0 indicates no depressive symptoms and 27 indicates severe depressive symptoms. Higher scores represent greater symptom severity, increased functional impairment, and poorer quality of life, corresponding to a worse outcome. Changes in PHQ-9 scores were assessed over the study period to evaluate treatment-related effects.

    Measured: 6 mounth

  6. Change in Functional Mobility Measured by Goniometric Range of Motion and Functional Activity Scale

    Functional mobility is assessed by measuring active range of motion of the affected region using a standard clinical goniometer (degrees of movement) and by recording performance on a standardized functional activity scale (0-10 numeric rating of activity limitation). Higher goniometric values indicate greater range of motion, and higher functional activity scores indicate greater activity limitation. Change in functional mobility is evaluated by comparing measurements obtained at baseline and predefined post-procedure time points.

    Measured: Baseline and 72 hours post-procedure

  7. Change in Sleep Quality Measured by Numeric Rating Scale

    Sleep quality is assessed using a Sleep Quality Numeric Rating Scale, an 11-point scale ranging from 0 to 10, where 0 indicates "worst possible sleep quality" and 10 indicates "best possible sleep quality." Higher scores indicate better sleep quality. Change in sleep quality is evaluated by comparing scores obtained at baseline and predefined post-procedure time points.

    Measured: Baseline and 72 hours post-procedure

  8. Patient Global Impression of Change Score

    Patient status is assessed using the Patient Global Impression of Change scale, a standardized 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 7, where 1 indicates "very much worse," 4 indicates "no change," and 7 indicates "very much improved." Higher scores indicate greater perceived improvement. Scores obtained at predefined post-procedure time points are recorded and analyzed to characterize patient-reported global status following intervention.

    Measured: 72 hours post-procedure

  9. Local Procedure Site Reaction / Adverse Events

    Documentation of local complications such as bruising, swelling, soreness, or sensory changes at the site of nerve intervention to assess procedural safety.

    Measured: Immediate post-procedure and 72 hours

  10. Time to First Rescue Analgesic

    Time from procedure to first use of additional analgesics (other than baseline opioids) to evaluate the duration of pain relief provided by each intervention.

    Measured: Up to 72 hours post-procedure

  11. Change in Functional Pain Interference Measured by Brief Pain Inventory Interference Scale

    Functional impact of pain is assessed using the Brief Pain Inventory Interference Scale, a validated patient-reported outcome measure consisting of seven items evaluating pain interference with general activity, mood, walking ability, normal work, relations with others, sleep, and enjoyment of life. Each item is scored on an 11-point numeric scale ranging from 0 to 10, where 0 indicates "does not interfere" and 10 indicates "completely interferes." Higher scores indicate greater pain-related interference. Change in functional pain interference is evaluated by comparing scores obtained at baseline and predefined post-procedure time points.

    Measured: Baseline and 72 hours post-procedure

Timeline

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

  1. First posted18 Feb 2026
  2. Study start5 Feb 2026
  3. Primary completion5 Feb 2026
  4. Study completion5 Feb 2026

Resources

More details

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

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase N/A
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Parallel groups
Masking
None (open label)
Enrolment
100 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT07416448
Sponsor's protocol ID
CMS-NAP-UA
Acronym
NAP-C/R
Status last verified
Oct 2026
First submitted
4 Feb 2026
Last updated
19 Oct 2026
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
Individual data sharing
No

Publications

  • Dmytriiev D, Liu W, Barsa M, Khomenko A, Strokan A, Pasquina PF, Cohen SP. Perineuromal hydrodissection for acute postamputation pain? An observational study in a time of war. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2026 Jul 6;51(7):795-804. doi: 10.1136/rapm-2024-106307.

    PubMed 39971386

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing cryoablation and Radiofrequency ablation alone in people with Pain Management and Quality of Life, run by Ukrainian Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Therapy at 1 site in Ukraine.

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 9 inclusion and 9 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 19 Oct 2026. 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 Ukraine. 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?

Change in Pain Intensity Measured by Verbal Numeric Rating Scale (VNRS) (time frame: 4, 24, and 72 hours post-procedure.). 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 NCT07416448, which also lists 1 linked publication.

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 19 Oct 2026.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

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

Create a free accountLog in