Patients with combat-related amputations frequently experience persistent neuroma pain that may interfere with rehabilitation, prosthesis use, sleep, mobility, and quality of life. Current treatment options often provide only temporary relief. This study aims to compare two ultrasound-guided injection approaches for chronic neuroma pain after combat-related amputation: botulinum toxin type A and local anesthetic injection. Participants will be randomly assigned to receive one of the two treatments. Pain intensity, neuropathic pain symptoms, phantom limb pain, prosthesis tolerance, and functional outcomes will be evaluated during follow-up visits over a 24-week period. The goal of the study is to determine whether botulinum toxin type A provides longer-lasting pain reduction and improved functional recovery compared with local anesthetic injection in patients with chronic neuroma pain after combat-related amputation.
Neuroma pain is a common and disabling complication after combat-related limb amputation. Persistent neuroma pain may contribute to residual limb pain, phantom limb pain, impaired prosthesis tolerance, sleep disturbance, reduced mobility, and decreased quality of life. Conventional treatment strategies, including local anesthetic injections, often provide only temporary pain relief. Botulinum toxin type A has emerged as a potential treatment option because of its ability to modulate peripheral nociceptive signaling, reduce neurogenic inflammation, and decrease peripheral sensitization. However, evidence regarding its efficacy in patients with combat-related amputations remains limited. The NEUROQUIET Trial is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind clinical trial designed to compare ultrasound-guided botulinum toxin type A injection versus ultrasound-guided local anesthetic injection for persistent neuroma pain after combat-related amputation. Eligible participants with ultrasound-confirmed painful neuroma will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either botulinum toxin type A or local anesthetic injection under ultrasound guidance. Participants, outcome assessors, and data analysts will remain blinded to treatment allocation. Patients will undergo longitudinal follow-up for 24 weeks. Outcomes will include pain intensity, neuropathic pain characteristics, phantom limb pain, residual limb pain, prosthesis tolerance, analgesic consumption, sleep disturbance, and patient-reported global improvement. The study aims to determine whether botulinum toxin type A provides greater and longer-lasting analgesia compared with local anesthetic injection in patients with chronic neuroma pain following combat-related amputation.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
TRIPLE
Enrollment
100
Ultrasound-guided perineuroma injection of botulinum toxin type A for treatment of persistent neuroma pain after combat-related amputation.
Ultrasound-guided perineuroma injection of local anesthetic for treatment of persistent neuroma pain after combat-related amputation.
Feofaniya Clinical Hospital
Kyiv, Vinnytsia Oblast, Ukraine
Vinnitsya university hospital
Vinnitsa, Ukraine
Change in neuroma pain intensity measured
Assessment of change in average neuroma pain intensity using an 11-point Numeric Rating Scale (0 = no pain, 10 = worst imaginable pain) following ultrasound-guided injection treatment.
Time frame: Baseline to 12 weeks after intervention
Residual Limb Pain Intensity Assessed Using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS)
Residual limb pain intensity will be assessed using the 11-point Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). Participants will rate their average residual limb pain during the previous 7 days on a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 indicates "no pain" and 10 indicates "worst imaginable pain." Higher scores indicate greater pain intensity and a worse clinical outcome. Scale Information: Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) Minimum Value: 0 Maximum Value: 10 Interpretation: Higher scores indicate worse residual limb pain intensity.
Time frame: Baseline to 24 weeks
Pain Catastrophizing
Pain catastrophizing will be assessed using the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), a validated 13-item self-report questionnaire designed to measure catastrophic thinking related to pain. The PCS evaluates three domains: rumination, magnification, and helplessness. Total scores range from 0 to 52, with higher scores indicating greater levels of pain catastrophizing and a worse psychological pain profile. Scale Information: Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) Minimum Value: 0 Maximum Value: 52 Interpretation: Higher scores indicate greater pain catastrophizing and worse pain-related psychological outcomes.
Time frame: Baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months after amputation.
Prosthesis Tolerance Assessed Using the Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) - Utility and Satisfaction Domains
Prosthesis tolerance will be assessed using selected domains of the Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ), a validated instrument evaluating comfort, utility, satisfaction, and functional use of the prosthesis. Scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better prosthesis tolerance and satisfaction. Scale Information: Prosthesis Evaluation Questionnaire (PEQ) Minimum Value: 0 Maximum Value: 100 Interpretation: Higher scores indicate better prosthesis tolerance, comfort, and prosthetic adaptation.
Time frame: Baseline to 24 weeks
Analgesic Consumption
Analgesic consumption will be assessed by calculating the total daily analgesic use and converting opioid medications into Oral Morphine Equivalent Daily Dose (OMEDD). Non-opioid analgesics (e.g., acetaminophen, NSAIDs, gabapentinoids) will also be recorded. Higher opioid consumption indicates greater analgesic requirements and potentially more severe pain. Measurement: Oral Morphine Equivalent Daily Dose (OMEDD), expressed in milligrams per day (mg/day) Minimum Value: 0 mg/day Maximum Value: No predefined maximum value Interpretation: Higher values indicate greater analgesic consumption and higher pain management requirements.
Time frame: Baseline to 24 weeks
Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC)
Overall perceived improvement will be assessed using the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scale. The PGIC is a validated patient-reported outcome measure that evaluates a participant's perception of change in pain, function, and overall health status since the beginning of treatment. Participants rate their overall improvement on a 7-point scale ranging from "Very much worse" to "Very much improved." Scale Information: Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) Minimum Value: 1 (Very much worse) Maximum Value: 7 (Very much improved) Interpretation: Higher scores indicate greater perceived improvement and better overall clinical outcomes. Scale Categories: 1. = Very much worse 2. = Much worse 3. = Minimally worse 4. = No change 5. = Minimally improved 6. = Much improved 7. = Very much improved
Time frame: Week 12 and Week 24
Adverse Events
Adverse events will be assessed by recording the occurrence, type, severity, and relationship to treatment throughout the study period. Events may include medication-related adverse effects, prosthesis-related complications, falls, skin breakdown, residual limb complications, infections, hospitalizations, and other clinically significant events. Severity will be graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), Version 5.0, when applicable. Measurement: Number of participants experiencing one or more adverse events. Minimum Value: 0 participants Maximum Value: Number of participants enrolled in the study Interpretation: Higher values indicate a greater incidence of adverse events and worse safety outcomes. Additional Safety Assessment: Severity of adverse events will be categorized as Grade 1 (Mild) to Grade 5 (Death related to adverse event) according to CTCAE v5.0.
Time frame: Baseline to 24 weeks
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.