Cited by 12Classical Anatomy and HistologyReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular TechniquesHernia repair and management

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 85 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Tendinous Inscriptions of the Rectus Abdominis: A Comprehensive Review

Open access

Abstract

The rectus abdominis muscles are interrupted by tendinous inscriptions, which typically appear as fibrous bands crossing the muscle. The current literature on tendinous inscriptions is scarce; hence, this review will provide a detailed overview of their anatomical description, including their variation, embryology, comparative anatomy, and clinical application. Understanding the anatomy and function of the tendinous inscription assists in providing clinical relevance and in guiding reconstructive surgeons in their surgical planning and design.

Overview

CoChat Summary

Written by AI from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This comprehensive review synthesizes anatomical, embryological, comparative, and clinical literature on tendinous inscriptions of the rectus abdominis, emphasizing their variable number, shape, thickness, and vascularity. It highlights surgical relevance for TRAM flap planning and other reconstructive procedures, while noting scarce and uncertain evidence on their development.

Key findings

  • Anson and McVay examined 162 rectus abdominis muscles in 81 cadaveric specimens: 1.2% (2/162) had one inscription, 5.9% (9/162) two, 58.0% (94/162) three, 35.2% (57/162) four, and 82% of specimens had an equal number bilaterally. The review also states the muscle is usually divided by three to five irregular fibrous bands and typically has three to four paired tendinous inscriptions.
  • Among 530 inscriptions, 67% (356/530) extended completely from lateral to medial muscle borders, 24% (128/530) did not extend across more than half the muscle width, and 9% (46/530) were fragments less than half the width. Milloy et al. classified 484 complete or almost complete inscriptions: 109 (22.5%) straight, 57 (12%) biphasic with apices pointing caudally, 186 (38%) biphasic with apices pointing cephalad, and 132 (27.5%) multiphasic.
  • Broyles et al. assessed 168 tendinous inscriptions in 32 fresh human cadavers; 18% (30/168) showed full thickness during their anterior–posterior course without intervening neurovascular structures. Among nine hemiabdominal specimens with 55 inscriptions, 42% (23/55) demonstrated at least one full-thickness tendinous inscription.
  • Whetzel and Huang dissected 14 cadavers and found the arterial supply arises from transverse arcades from the superior or inferior epigastric arteries, with the greatest number of perforators within the tendinous inscriptions; the periumbilical inferior tendinous inscription region had the highest density (1.47 per sq cm), while the superior periumbilical muscular segment had the highest concentration (0.123 per sq cm). Embryologically, the rectus abdominis lacks tendinous inscriptions until the 17th week of gestation, with inscriptions appearing between the late 17th and 20th weeks; Rizk and Adieb studied 60 rat embryos and 10 postnatal rat specimens and concluded tendinous intersections were only observed postnatally and attached exclusively to the ventral, not dorsal, rectus sheath.

Methods

  • Design: comprehensive narrative review of the literature on tendinous inscriptions of the rectus abdominis.
  • Data: existing anatomical, embryological, comparative anatomy, and clinical studies, including cadaveric samples such as 81 cadavers/162 muscles, 32 fresh cadavers, 14 cadavers, and 46 cadavers, plus animal embryological work in 60 rat embryos and 10 postnatal rats.
  • Analysis: narrative synthesis of anatomical description, variation, embryology, comparative anatomy, and clinical applications; no systematic search strategy or meta-analysis is described.

Limitations

  • Stated in the paper: the current literature on tendinous inscriptions is scarce, and the embryological origins of tendinous inscriptions are uncertain.
  • Evident from the text: as a narrative review, it does not report a systematic search strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria, or quality appraisal, and it synthesizes heterogeneous cadaveric, animal, and clinical studies without presenting primary data.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7759/cureus.3100

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Figures

Figure 1 Anterior abdominal wall of a cadaver noting the tendinous intersections (arrows). Note the difference in shape between the upper left and right intersection.
Figure 1 Anterior abdominal wall of a cadaver noting the tendinous intersections (arrows). Note the difference in shape between the upper left and right intersection.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Anterior abdominal wall of a cadaver noting five intersections on the dissected right side. A gastrostomy tube is noted as reference.
Figure 2 Anterior abdominal wall of a cadaver noting five intersections on the dissected right side. A gastrostomy tube is noted as reference.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Reflection of the right-sided rectus abdominis demonstrates the neurovascular pedicles. A gastrostomy tube is noted as reference.
Figure 3 Reflection of the right-sided rectus abdominis demonstrates the neurovascular pedicles. A gastrostomy tube is noted as reference.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 MRI of the anterior abdominal wall. Note the tendinous intersections (arrows). MRI: magnetic resonance imaging
Figure 4 MRI of the anterior abdominal wall. Note the tendinous intersections (arrows). MRI: magnetic resonance imagingCC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

70 Not checked yet · 5 Own interpretation · 3 No full text of the sources · 1 Check pending · 1 No basis given

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 27
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 33

Create a free account to see these claims.

Create a free account to see these assumptions.

28 more claims

Create a free account to see all 80 claims and to verify the 82 references still open.

See all claims — free account

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

3 of 3

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [2]Abdominal Wall. In Surgical Anatomy Anson BJ McVay CB Philadelphia WB Saunders Co 1 1971

Cited by

See all 12

Metadata

Authors
Rai, R., Azih, L. C., Iwanaga, J., Loukas, M., Mortazavi, M., Oskouian, R. J., & Tubbs, R. S.
Affiliations
St. George's University (GD)
Corresponding author
Iwanaga, Joe
Venue
Cureus
Published
2018-08-04
Volume
10
Issue
8
Pages
e3100-e3100
ISSN
2168-8184 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2886318833
Cited by
12
References
29
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2
FWCI
3.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Cureus (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anatomy › Classical Anatomy and Histology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Reconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hernia repair and management
Keywords
rectus abdominis, abdominal wall anatomy, anatomical variation, embryology, comparative anatomy, reconstructive surgery, surgical planning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review