Microthane^® Fuentes

1 Vázquez G. Patients‘ satisfaction with anatomic polyurethane implants. Gland Surg. 2017 Apr;6(2):185-192. doi: 10.21037/gs.2016.11.02. PMID: 28497022; PMCID: PMC5409901.
2 Grenier S, Sandig M, Holdsworth DW, Mequanint K. Interactions of coronary artery smooth muscle cells with 3D porous polyurethane scaffolds. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2009 May;89(2):293-303. doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.31972.
PMID: 18431771.
3 Miron-Mendoza M et al. Matrix Biol. 2017 Dec;64:69-80. doi: 10.1016/j.matbio.2017.06.001. PMID: 28602859; PMCID: PMC5705415.
4 Grenier S, et al. Polyurethane biomaterials for fabricating 3D porous scaffolds and supporting vascular cells. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2007 Sep 15;82(4):802-9. doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.31194. PMID:17326143.
5 Jovanovic D, et al. Novel polyurethanes with interconnected porous structure induce in vivo tissue remodeling and accompanied vascularization. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2010 Oct;95(1):198-208. doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.32817.
PMID: 2057498
6 Shelke, N.B. et all (2014) Polyurethane Applications, Chapter 7.6: 137-139, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-396983-5.00007-7.
7 Farè S, Valtulina V, Petrini P, Alessandrini E, Pietrocola G, Tanzi MC, Speziale P, Visai L. In vitro interaction of human fibroblasts and platelets with a shape-memory polyurethane. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2005 Apr 1;73(1):1-11.
doi: 10.1002/jbm.a.30193. PMID: 15704114.
8 Handel N, Gutierrez J. Long-term safety and efficacy of polyurethane foam-covered breast implants. Aesthet Surg J. 2006 May-Jun;26(3):265-74. doi: 10.1016/j.asj.2006.04.001. PMID: 19338905.
9 Verpaele A, Tonnard P. Experience with the new generation Micro Polyurethane covered Silicone breast implants. 2018.
10 Pompei S et al. Aesthet Surg J. 2016 Nov;36(10):1124-1129. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjw171. PMID: 27677825.
11 Pompei S et al. Aesthet Surg J. 2017 Feb;37(2):171-176. doi: 10.1093/asj/sjw183. PMID: 27940908.
12 Loreti A et al. Breast. 2020 Apr;50:1-7. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2020.01.008. Epub 2020 Jan 22. PMID: 32062351
13 Breast Implants and Pressure (2018), G&G, Data on file.
14 Excellent and very good patient satisfaction Survey of 296 B-Lite® patients 2017; G&G, Data on File
15 Vegas MR, Martin del Yerro JL et al. Stiffness, compliance, resilience, and creep deformation: understanding implant-soft tissue dynamics in the augmented breast: fundamentals based on materials science. Aesthetic
Plast Surg. 2013 Oct;37(5):922-30. doi: 10.1007/s00266-013-0197-y. Epub 2013 Aug 14.
16 Pataky RE, Baliski CR. Reoperation costs in attempted breast-conserving surgery: a decision analysis. Curr Oncol. 2016 Oct;23(5):314-321. doi: 10.3747/co.23.2989. Epub 2016 Oct 25. PMID: 27803595; PMCID:PMC5081007.
17 Vonlanthen R, Slankamenac K et al. The impact of complications on costs of major surgical procedures: a cost analysis of 1200 patients. Ann Surg. 2011 Dec;254(6):907-13. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31821d4a43. PMID: 21562405.
18 Salenger R, Etchill EW et al. Hospital variability in modifiable factors driving coronary artery bypass charges. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2023 Feb;165(2):764-772.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2021.02.094. Epub 2021 Mar 9. PMID: 33846006.
19 Cogliandro A et al. Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: Evaluation of Patient’s Quality of Life and Satisfaction with BREAST-Q. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2023 Mar 21. doi: 10.1007/s00266-
023-03316-z. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 36944866.
20 Brunnert KE. The micropolyurethane foam-coated Diagon\Gel®4Two implant in aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery - 3-year results of an ongoing study. GMS Interdiscip Plast Reconstr Surg DGPW. 2015 Dec
21;4:Doc20. doi: 10.3205/iprs000079. PMID: 26713264; PMCID: PMC4686800.
21 Stan C, Biggs T. The Diagon/Gel Implant: A Preliminary Report of 894 Cases. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017 Jul 5;5(7):e1393. doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000001393. PMID: 28831340; PMCID: PMC5548563.
22 Salgarello M, Pagliara D, Barone Adesi L, Visconti G, Wild JB, Matey P. Direct to Implant Breast Reconstruction With Prepectoral Micropolyurethane Foam-Coated Implant:
Analysis of Patient Satisfaction. Clin Breast Cancer. 2021 Aug;21(4):e454-e461. doi: 10.1016/j.clbc.2021.01.015. Epub 2021 Jan 23. PMID: 33627298.
23 Coyette M, Coulie J, Lentini A, Gerdom A, Lengelé B. Prepectoral immediate breast reconstruction with polyurethane foam-coated implants:
Feasibility and early results in risk-reducing and therapeutic mastectomies. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2021 Nov;74(11):2876-2884. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2021.03.077. Epub 2021 Apr 20. PMID: 34011475.
24 De Vita R, Villanucci A, Buccheri EM, Pozzi M. Extended Clinical Experience With Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Prepectoral Polyurethane Implant Positioning (BRAND4P method). Clin Breast Cancer.
2022 Jul;22(5):e623-e628. doi: 10.1016/j.clbc.2022.03.005. Epub 2022 Mar 24. PMID: 35437225.
25 Cagli B, Carotti S, Segreto F, Francesconi M, Marangi GF, Tenna S, Diomedi M, Perrone G, Morini S, Persichetti P. „Histological and Immunohistochemical Evaluation of Human Breast Capsules Formed
Around Five Different Expander Surfaces“. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2023 Feb 27:e010317. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000010317. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 36827480.
26 IMPLANTS of EXCELLENCE, Annual Survey, 2007-2019, POLYTECH, Data on File.
27 Considering short hospital stay and operative time, no postoperative pain requiring the use of narcotics, no restrictions of arm-shoulder complex motility and therefore less referral to physical therapy, no major
complications requiring readmission or revisional surgery except for outpatient procedures, enhanced patient satisfaction.