FredrickLA, BeallDP, LyJQ, et al: The symptomatic accessory navicular bone: a report and discussion of the clinical presentation. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol34: 47, 2005.10.1067/j.cpradiol.2004.12.00415753878)| false
MelladoJM, RamosA, SalvadoE, et al: Accessory ossicles and sesamoid bones of the ankle and foot: imaging findings, clinical significance and differential diagnosis. Eur Radiol13(suppl 4): L164, 2003.10.1007/s00330-003-2011-8)| false
KanatliU, YetkinH, YalcinN: The relationship between accessory navicular and medial longitudinal arch: evaluation with a plantar pressure distribution measurement system. Foot Ankle Int24: 486, 2003.1285466910.1177/107110070302400606)| false
DavidsJR, GibsonTW, PughLI: Quantitative segmental analysis of weight-bearing radiographs of the foot and ankle for children: normal alignment. J Pediatr Orthop25: 769, 2005.10.1097/01.bpo.0000173244.74065.e416294134)| false
ChenYJ, HsuRW, LiangSC: Degeneration of the accessory navicular synchondrosis presenting as rupture of the posterior tibial tendon. J Bone Joint Surg Am79: 1791, 1997.940979210.2106/00004623-199712000-00004)| false
Pita-FernándezS, González-MartínC, Seoane-PilladoT, 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 Epidemiol25: 148, 2015.
Pita-FernándezS, González-MartínC, Seoane-PilladoT, 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 Epidemiol25: 148, 2015.10.2188/jea.JE20140082)| false
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: firstname.lastname@example.org)