Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42091145›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2026

Rationale and design of the SMILe (Spinal Morphine or Intravenous Lidocaine) study: protocol for a multicentre randomised clinical trial in southern Sweden on whether spinal morphine improves postoperative recovery compared to intravenous lidocaine in patients undergoing robot-assisted upper urinary tract surgery.

Martin Holmberg, Michelle Chew, Lena Nilsson, Per Skoglund, Hans Bahlmann

Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06349668 (SMILe), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT06349668 phase3recruitingnot on this map

SMILe: Spinal Morphine or Intravenous Lidocaine in Robot-assisted Upper Urologic Surgery

TypeinterventionalSponsorHans BahlmannRan2024 to 2027Enrolled220ConditionsOther Specified Disorders of Kidney and Ureter, Benign Neoplasm of Ureter, Calculus of Kidney and Ureter, Ureter CancerArmsspinal analgesia with morphine and bupivacaine, lidocaine infusion
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Martin HolmbergDepartment of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Östergötland County, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1698-1723
Michelle ChewDepartment of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Östergötland County, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2888-4111
Lena NilssonDepartment of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Östergötland County, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7489-9077
Per SkoglundDepartment of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Östergötland County, Sweden.
Hans BahlmannDepartment of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Östergötland County, Sweden hans.bahlmann@liu.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2658-2518

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRobot-assisted laparoscopic surgical procedures are commonly perceived to result in fast recovery; however, the postoperative course can be challenging for many patients. We have previously found severe pain and a significant decrease in the patient-reported outcome measure Quality-of-Recovery 15 (QoR-15) in a cohort of patients undergoing robot-assisted upper urinary tract surgery. In similar settings, intrathecal analgesia is sometimes used to improve recovery; however, its benefits have not been established. Therefore, this study aims to examine the effects of intrathecal analgesia in this setting compared with an active comparator intravenous lidocaine. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this randomised, assessor-blinded multicentre trial, 220 patients scheduled for robot-assisted upper urinary tract surgery under general anaesthesia are recruited after obtaining informed consent. They are randomised to receive either intrathecal analgesia or an intraoperative infusion with lidocaine. The primary study outcome is the decrease in QoR-15 from baseline to postoperative day 1. Other outcomes of interest include postoperative pain, length of stay and postoperative complications. Differences in intraoperative haemodynamics and postoperative inflammatory parameters will also be analysed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Swedish Medical Products Agency (5.1.1-2023-69740 and 5.1.2-2025-030145). The results of this study will be presented at national and international meetings and submitted for publication in peer-reviewed international medical journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT06349668.

Indexed as

Analgesics, OpioidAnesthetics, LocalLidocaineMorphinePostoperative PainRobotic Surgical ProceduresUrologic Surgical ProceduresAdultFemaleHumansInjections, SpinalLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedMulticenter Studies as TopicPain MeasurementAnalgesics, OpioidAnesthetics, LocalLidocaineMorphineAnaesthesia in urologyCLINICAL PHYSIOLOGYHemodynamicsPAIN MANAGEMENTPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresRandomized Controlled Trial

Identifiers

PMID42091145
PMCPMC13150920

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.