Background: Endovascular mechanical thrombectomy (EMT) can be performed with general anesthesia (GA) or using non-GA techniques. Several meta-analyses on the topic have reported discordant main outcomes. The aim of this retrospective single-center study was to analyze the relationship between clinical outcomes and anesthesiological management (GA vs. non-GA) in patients who underwent EMT for acute anterior ischemic stroke (AIS). Methods: We performed a propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis of patients who underwent EMT for acute AIS from January 2018 to December 2021. For PSM, we chose covariates influencing clinical decisions about anesthesiological management. Comparisons between groups were performed with the chi-square test for categorical variables and Student t-test or the Mann-Whitney U-test for continuous variables as appropriate. The relationships between anesthesiological management and clinical outcomes were analyzed using logistic regression, and results are reported as odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. A two-sided P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: From 194 observations (78 in the GA group, 116 in the non-GA group), after PSM, we obtained 70 data pairs. Both anesthesiological approaches resulted in similar rates of in-hospital mortality, 90-day functional independence, full recanalization, procedural complications, and intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). Performing EMT with GA was unrelated to the in-hospital and 90-day death rates, 90-day functional independence, full recanalization rate, procedural complications, and ICH (P>0.05). Conclusions Anesthesiological management did not influence clinical outcomes of EMT for acute AIS. Physiological stability during EMT may impact outcomes more significantly than anesthesiological management. Further studies on this topic are needed.

Purpose: Marginal bone loss (MBL) is an important clinical issue in implant therapy. One feature that has been cited as a contributing factor to this bone loss is peri-implant mucosal thickness. Therefore, in this report, we conducted a systematic review of the literature comparing bone remodeling around implants placed in areas with thick (≥2-mm) vs. thin (<2-mm) mucosa. Methods: A PICO question was defined. Manual and electronic searches were performed of the MEDLINE/PubMed and Cochrane Oral Health Group databases. The inclusion criteria were prospective studies that documented soft tissue thickness with direct intraoperative measurements and that included at least 1 year of follow-up. When possible, a meta-analysis was performed for both the overall and subgroup analyses. Results: Thirteen papers fulfilled the inclusion criteria. A meta-analysis of 7 randomized clinical trials was conducted. Significantly less bone loss was found around implants with thick mucosa than around those with thin mucosa (difference, −0.53 mm; P<0.0001).Subgroups were analyzed regarding the apico-coronal positioning, the use of platformmatched vs. platform-switched (PS) connections, and the use of cement-retained vs.screw-retained prostheses. In these analyses, thick mucosa was found to be associated with significantly less MBL than thin mucosa (P<0.0001). Among non-matching (PS) connections and screw-retained prostheses, bone levels were not affected by mucosal thickness. Conclusions Soft tissue thickness was found to be correlated with MBL except in cases of PS connections used on implants with thin tissues and screw-retained prostheses.Mucosal thickness did not affect implant survival or the occurrence of biological or aesthetic complications.Trial Registration: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO):CRD42018084598