Last reviewed · How we verify

NCT04547582: SCS-90

Spinal Cord Stimulation for Restoration of Function in Lower-Limb Amputees, 90-Day

Terminated NA Results posted Last updated 7 January 2026
What this trial tests

NA trial testing Spinal cord stimulator in Traumatic Amputation of Lower Extremity in 4 participants. Terminated before completion.

Timeline
27 May 2021
Primary endpoint
3 July 2023
3 July 2023

Quick facts

Lead sponsorLee Fisher, PhD
PhaseNA
StatusTerminated
Study typeINTERVENTIONAL
Allocationna
Designsingle group
Maskingnone
Primary purposetreatment
Enrollment4
Start date27 May 2021
Primary completion3 July 2023
Estimated completion3 July 2023
Sites1 location across United States

Drugs / interventions tested

Conditions studied

Sponsor

Lee Fisher, PhD

Who can join

Adults 22 to 70, any sex, with Traumatic Amputation of Lower Extremity or Phantom Limb Pain. Patients with the condition only — healthy volunteers not accepted.

Results — posted to ClinicalTrials.gov

Per-arm endpoint measurements with 95% confidence intervals where reported. Source: trial results section.

Number of Participants Experiencing Serious Device-related Adverse Events up to 90 Days Following Implantation Primary · 90 days

Investigators will track the number of participants experiencing serious device-related adverse events, such as unresolved superficial infection resulting in lead removal, deep infection, inpatient hospitalization, withdrawal from the study due to worsening pain or intolerable dysesthesia, or fracture due to falls related to the study interventions, that occur during the course of and up to 90 days following implantation.

GroupValue95% CI
Spinal cord stimulation0
Minimum Amplitude of Pulse Required to Evoke Sensory Percepts Primary · 90 days

Quantify the threshold stimulus required to evoke sensory percepts during epidural spinal nerve stimulation.

GroupValue95% CI
Spinal Cord Stimulation2
Minimum Charge Required to Evoke a Neurophysiological Response Primary · 90 days

Quantify the threshold (minimum charge) stimulus required to evoke neurophysiological responses during epidural spinal nerve stimulation

GroupValue95% CI
Spinal cord stimulation1.23
Location of Evoked Sensation - Missing Toes Primary · 90 days

Participants reporting sensation on missing toes from spinal cord stimulation.

GroupValue95% CI
Spinal Cord Stimulation1
Location of Evoked Sensation - Plantar Surface of Missing Foot Primary · 90 days

Participants perceiving sensation on the plantar surface of missing foot

GroupValue95% CI
Spinal Cord Stimulation1
Change in Phantom Limb Pain Using the McGill Pain Questionnaire Secondary · Pre-implant (baseline), Weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and post-explant (90 days)

The McGill Pain Questionnaire is a questionnaire used to evaluate the severity of pain experienced by the participant. The questionnaire is scaled, with a minimum and maximum pain score of 0 and 78, respectively. The higher the score on the questionnaire, the more intense the pain felt by the participant. A lower score than previously reported represents a decrease in experienced phantom limb pain. Before placement of the spinal cord stimulator leads, investigators will document the subject's description of their history of perceived phantom limb. Investigators will ask them to periodically u

Pre-implant (baseline)
GroupValue95% CI
Spinal Cord Stimulation48
Week 1 (after implant)
GroupValue95% CI
Spinal Cord Stimulation32
Week 2
GroupValue95% CI
Spinal Cord Stimulation45
Week 3
GroupValue95% CI
Spinal Cord Stimulation45
Week 4
GroupValue95% CI
Spinal Cord Stimulation23
Week 5
GroupValue95% CI
Spinal Cord Stimulation38
Week 6
GroupValue95% CI
Spinal Cord Stimulation32
Week 7
GroupValue95% CI
Spinal Cord Stimulation34
Qualitative Self-report of Evoked Sensations Secondary · 90 days

Document the subjective perception of lumbosacral epidural spinal nerve stimulation for restoration of sensation. The investigators will ask each subject to provide subjective feedback on their perceived utility of the sensory feedback provided by the device. A total of 13 natural descriptors and 5 paresthetic descriptors were presented to participants weekly to describe the sensation provided via spinal cord stimulation. The goal of the study is to elicit more natural than paresthetic descriptors from participants. Natural: pressure, tickle, flutter, warm, sharp, prick, cool, pulsing, vibrat

GroupValue95% CI
Spinal Cord Stimulation1
Spinal Cord Stimulation0
Able to Use a Prosthetic Limb With Neural Signals Secondary · 90 days

Investigators will test the subject's success rate during control of prosthetic limb with and without sensory feedback provided by electrical stimulation of the spinal roots. Using either a virtual prosthetic limb or an instrumented prosthesis, stimulation of the spinal roots will be modulated based on signals recorded from the limb.

GroupValue95% CI
Spinal Cord Stimulation1

Adverse events — posted to ClinicalTrials.gov

Time frame: 90 days. Reporting threshold: 0%. Adverse-event reports describe events observed during the trial — not all are caused by the drug.

Spinal Cord Stimulation
Serious: 0/1 (0%)
Deaths: 0/1
Other adverse events (2 terms — click to expand)

ReactionSystemSpinal Cord Stimulation
Incision painSurgical and medical procedures
Chest pain after surgerySurgical and medical procedures

Data from ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04547582 adverse events section.

Sponsor's own description

The goals of this study are to provide sensory information to amputees and reduce phantom limb pain via electrical stimulation of the lumbar spinal cord and spinal nerves. The spinal nerves convey sensory information from peripheral nerves to higher order centers in the brain. These structures still remain intact after amputation and electrical stimulation of the dorsal spinal nerves in individuals with intact limbs and amputees has been demonstrated to generate paresthetic sensory percepts referred to portions of the distal limb. Further, there is recent evidence that careful modulation of stimulation parameters can convert paresthetic sensations to more naturalistic ones when stimulating peripheral nerves in amputees. However, it is currently unclear whether it is possible to achieve this same conversion when stimulating the spinal nerves, and if those naturalistic sensations can have positive effects on phantom limb pain. As a first step towards those goals, in this study, the investigators will quantify the sensations generated by electrical stimulation of the spinal nerves, study the relationship between stimulation parameters and the quality of those sensations, measure changes in control of a prosthesis with sensory stimulation, and quantify the effects of that stimulation on the perception of the phantom limb and any associated pain.

Publications & conference data

2 peer-reviewed publications reference this trial (live from Europe PMC):

  1. Restoration of sensory feedback from the foot and reduction of phantom limb pain via closed-loop spinal cord stimulation.
    Nanivadekar AC, Bose R, Petersen BA, Okorokova EV, et al · · 2024 · cited 43× · PMID 38097809 · DOI 10.1038/s41551-023-01153-8
  2. Characterizing spinal reflexes evoked by sensory spinal cord stimulation in people with lower-limb amputation.
    Bose R, Dalrymple AN, Sarma D, Petersen BA, et al · · 2025 · cited 1× · PMID 41034988 · DOI 10.1186/s12984-025-01720-x

Verify or expand the search:

Other trials of Spinal cord stimulator

Trials testing the same drug.

Other recruiting trials for Traumatic Amputation of Lower Extremity

Currently open trials in the same condition.

Other Lee Fisher, PhD trials

Trials by the same sponsor.

Verify against primary sources

Data sources for this page

Drug Landscape aggregates and links these public records for informational use only. Always verify against the primary source before clinical or regulatory decisions. Canonical URL: https://druglandscape.com/trial/NCT04547582.

Primary sources · FDA · ClinicalTrials.gov · EMA · SEC EDGAR · ChEMBL · Wikidata · full sourcing