• 1

    Miller TT, Staron RB, Feldman F, et al: The symptomatic accessory tarsal navicular bone: assessment with MR imaging. Radiology 195: 849, 1995.

  • 2

    Lawson JP, Ogden JA, Sella E, et al: The painful accessory navicular. Skeletal Radiol 13: 250, 1984.

  • 3

    Fredrick LA, Beall DP, Ly JQ, et al: The symptomatic accessory navicular bone: a report and discussion of the clinical presentation. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 34: 47, 2005.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Issever AS, Minden K, Eshed I, et al: Accessory navicular bone: when ankle pain does not originate from the ankle. Clin Rheumatol 26: 2143, 2007.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Mellado JM, Ramos A, Salvado E, et al: Accessory ossicles and sesamoid bones of the ankle and foot: imaging findings, clinical significance and differential diagnosis. Eur Radiol 13(suppl 4): L164, 2003.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Kanatli U, Yetkin H, Yalcin N: The relationship between accessory navicular and medial longitudinal arch: evaluation with a plantar pressure distribution measurement system. Foot Ankle Int 24: 486, 2003.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Sullivan JA, Miller WA: The relationship of the accessory navicular to the development of the flat foot. Clin Orthop Relat Res 144: 233, 1979.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Mygind HB: The accessory tarsal scaphoid; clinical features and treatment. Acta Orthop Scand 23: 142, 1953.

  • 9

    Zadek I, Gold AM: The accessory tarsal scaphoid. J Bone Joint Surg Am 30: 957, 1948.

  • 10

    Davids JR, Gibson TW, Pugh LI: Quantitative segmental analysis of weight-bearing radiographs of the foot and ankle for children: normal alignment. J Pediatr Orthop 25: 769, 2005.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Park H, Hwang JH, Seo JO, et al: The relationship between accessory navicular and flat foot: a radiologic study. J Pediatr Orthop 35: 739, 2015.

  • 12

    Chen YJ, Hsu RW, Liang SC: Degeneration of the accessory navicular synchondrosis presenting as rupture of the posterior tibial tendon. J Bone Joint Surg Am 79: 1791, 1997.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Sella EJ, Lawson JP, Ogden JA: The accessory navicular synchondrosis. Clin Orthop 209: 280, 1986.

  • 14

    Chater EH: Foot pain and the accessory navicular bone. Ir J Med Sci 442: 471, 1962.

  • 15

    Macnicol MF, Voutsinas S: Surgical treatment of the symptomatic accessory navicular. J Bone Joint Surg Br 66: 218, 1984.

  • 16

    Kidner FC: The prehallux in relation to flatfoot. JAMA 101: 1539, 1933.

  • 17

    Veitch JM: Evaluation of the Kidner procedure in treatment of symptomatic accessory tarsal scaphoid. Clin Orthop Relat Res 131: 210, 1978.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Pita-Fernández S, González-Martín C, Seoane-Pillado T, et al: Validity of footprint analysis to determine flatfoot using clinical diagnosis as the gold standard in a random sample aged 40 years and older. J Epidemiol 25: 148, 2015.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    Yousefi Azarfam AA, Ozdemir O, Altuntaş O, et al: The relationship between body mass index and footprint parameters in older people. Foot (Edinb) 24: 186, 2014.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Relationship Between Type of Accessory Navicular Bone and Radiographic Parameters of the Foot

Serkan BayramDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Siverek State Hospital, Siverek, Turkey.

Search for other papers by Serkan Bayram in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 MD
and
Mustafa KaraDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Siverek State Hospital, Siverek, Turkey.

Search for other papers by Mustafa Kara in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
 MD
Restricted access

Background: We evaluated the relationship between the type of accessory navicular bone (ANB) and radiographic parameters of the foot in patients with bilateral ANBs of different types.

Methods: Patients with bilateral ANBs of different types participated in this study between May 2019 and April 2020. Patient data, including age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and presence of symptoms, were obtained. We aimed to compare the radiographic parameters of both feet to evaluate the differences from one another in patients with bilateral ANBs of different types (one side type 1 and one side type 2) because the foot angles may differ in each person. Seven radiographic parameters evaluating hindfoot, midfoot, and forefoot alignment were measured: calcaneal pitch angle, talocalcaneal angle, tibiocalcaneal angle, naviculocuboid overlap, talonavicular coverage angle, and anteroposterior and lateral talo–first metatarsal angles.

Results: Twenty patients (13 women and seven men) with a mean ± SD age of 38.5 ± 12.3 years were included in the study. The patients had a mean ± SD height of 168.1 ± 7.1 cm, weight of 77.2 ± 10.5 kg, and BMI of 27.4 ± 4.3. There were no significant differences between type 1 and type 2 ANBs in any radiographic parameters and no significant correlations between radiographic parameters and age, BMI, or the presence of symptoms.

Conclusions: We found that the type of ANB had no effect on the radiographic measurements of the foot in patients with bilateral ANBs of different types. Age, BMI, and the presence of symptoms also demonstrated no correlations with the radiographic parameters.

Corresponding author: Serkan Bayram, MD, Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Siverek State Hospital, Ediz, Şanlıurfa Diyarbakır Yolu 8. Km, 63600, Siverek, Şanlıurfa, 63614, Turkey. (E-mail: dr.serkanbayram89@gmail.com)