Objective: Accessory navicular (AN) is one of the most common accessory bones of the foot. It is classified into three types according to radiologic appearance. Also these types are divided into subgroups. It was difficult to distinguish the prominent navicular tuberosity from the Type IIIb AN as there was no criterion in the literature. Therefore, it is aimed to ensure morphometric data for the medial extension of AN. Material and Methods: In the present study, radiographs of 77 subjects were investigated in terms of AN presence and types. Widths and anteroposterior lengths of both native navicular and its medial extension were measured and data were evaluated statistically. Results: Type I and Type II AN bones were detected in 6 and 11 sides, respectively. While Type IIIb could not be discernable, Type IIIa and c were found in 3 sides. The width and anteroposterior length of native navicular bone were found significantly higher in men than in women (p=0.0001, p=0.018). But there was no statistically significant difference between sexes for the parameters of the medial extension (p=0.776, p=0.137). Dimensions of the medial bony extension didn't show significant differences in the presence or absence of AN (Type I, II, IIIa, c). Conclusion: In all cases, navicular tuberosity was exceeding the surgical reference line medially more or less. Knowledge about the diversity in morphometry of the exceeding part could be helpful for surgical procedures. To clarify this issue and as the discrimination criteria is not found sufficient, it is proposed to describe Type IIIb AN as an enormous sized tuberosity of native navicular rather than being an accessory bone.
Keywords: Accessory navicular; flat foot; navicular bone; posterior tibial muscle; prominent navicular tuberosity
Amaç: Aksesuar naviküler (AN) kemik, ayakta sık karşılaşılan aksesuar kemiklerden biridir. Radyolojik görünümüne göre 3 tipte sınıflandırılmıştır. Ayrıca bunlar da alt tiplere ayrılmıştır. Ancak literatürde net bir kriter bulunmadığı için Tip IIIb AN'nin, belirgin tuberositas ossis naviculareden ayrımı tam olarak yapılamamıştır. Bu sebeple, bu çalışmada naviküler kemik ve medial uzantısına yönelik morfometrik veri sağlanması amaçlanmıştır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Bu çalışmada, AN varlığını ve tiplerini belirlemek için 77 bireyin radyografileri incelendi. Normal naviküler kemiğin ve medial uzantısının genişlikleri ve ön-arka mesafeleri ölçüldü ve istatistiksel olarak değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Altı tarafta Tip I ve 11 tarafta Tip II AN tespit edilirken, Tip III (a ve c) ise 3 tarafta tespit edildi (Tip IIIb ayırt edilemedi). Normal naviküler kemiğin genişliği ve ön-arka uzunluğu, erkeklerde, kadınlara göre istatistiksel olarak daha yüksek bulundu (p=0,0001, p=0,018). Medial uzantı parametreleri için ise cinsiyetler arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark yoktu (p=0,776, p=0,137). Kemiğin medial uzantısının boyutları, AN (Tip I, II, IIIa, c) kemiğin var olup olmaması ile önemli bir değişim göstermiyordu. Sonuç: Tuberositas ossis naviculare, tüm olgularda az ya da çok cerrahi referans hattının medialinde yer alıyordu. Mediale taşan bu kısmın morfometrisi ile ilgili bilgilerin, cerrahi işlemler için faydalı olabileceği düşünüldü. Konuya açıklık kazandırmak için ve ayırt edici kriter yeterli görülmediği için Tip IIIb AN'nin, aksesuar bir kemik olmaktan ziyade, asıl kemiğin aşırı büyük bir uzantısı olarak tarif edilmesi önerildi.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Os naviculare accessoria; düz tabanlık; os naviculare; musculus tibialis posterior; tuberositas ossis naviculare
- Mellado JM, Ramos A, Salvadó E, Camins A, Danús M, Saurí A. Accessory ossicles and sesamoid bones of the ankle and foot: imaging findings, clinical significance and differential diagnosis. Eur Radiol. 2003;13 Suppl 4: L164-77. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Coskun N, Yuksel M, Cevener M, Arican RY, Ozdemir H, Bircan O, et al. Incidence of accessory ossicles and sesamoid bones in the feet: a radiographic study of the Turkish subjects. Surg Radiol Anat. 2009;31(1):19-24. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Perdikakis E, Grigoraki E, Karantanas A. Os naviculare: the multi-ossicle configuration of a normal variant. Skeletal Radiol. 2011;40(1):85-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Nwawka OK, Hayashi D, Diaz LE, Goud AR, Arndt WF 3rd, Roemer FW, et al. Sesamoids and accessory ossicles of the foot: anatomical variability and related pathology. Insights Imaging. 2013;4(5):581-93. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Mosel LD, Kat E, Voyvodic F. Imaging of the symptomatic type II accessory navicular bone. Australas Radiol. 2004;48(2):267-71. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Senses I, Kiter E, Gunal I. Restoring the continuity of the tibialis posterior tendon in the treatment of symptomatic accessory navicular with flat feet. J Orthop Sci. 2004;9(4):408-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Keles Coskun N, Arican RY, Utuk A, Ozcanli H, Sindel T. The incidence of accessory navicular bone types in Turkish subjects. Surg Radiol Anat. 2009;31(9):675-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Leonard ZC, Fortin PT. Adolescent accessory navicular. Foot Ankle Clin. 2010;15(2):337-47. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Haffner M, Conklin M. Bergman's Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Human Anatomic Variation. In: Tubbs RS, Shoja MM, Loukas M, eds. Bones of the lower limb. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons Inc; 2016. p.89-116. [Crossref]
- Kalbouneh H, Alajoulin O, Alsalem M, Humoud N, Shawaqfeh J, Alkhoujah M, et al. Incidence and anatomical variations of accessory navicular bone in patients with foot pain: A retrospective radiographic analysis. Clin Anat. 2017;30(4):436-44. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Issever AS, Minden K, Eshed I, Hermann KA. Accessory navicular bone: when ankle pain does not originate from the ankle. Clin Rheumatol. 2007;26(12):2143-4. Erratum in: Clin Rheumatol. 2007;26(12):2207. Erratum in: Clin Rheumatol. 2007;26(12 ):2207. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Kiter E, Günal I, Turgut A, Köse N. Evaluation of simple excision in the treatment of symptomatic accessory navicular associated with flat feet. J Orthop Sci. 2000;5(4):333-5. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Choi YS, Lee KT, Kang HS, Kim EK. MR imaging findings of painful type II accessory navicular bone: correlation with surgical and pathologic studies. Korean J Radiol. 2004; 5(4):274-9. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Coughlin MJ. Sesamoid and accessory bones of the foot. Surgery of the foot and ankle. 8th ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2006. p.438-94.
- Veitch JM. Evaluation of the Kidner procedure in treatment of symptomatic accessory tarsal scaphoid. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1978;(131): 210-3. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Huang J, Zhang Y, Ma X, Wang X, Zhang C, Chen L. Accessory navicular bone incidence in Chinese patients: a retrospective analysis of X-rays following trauma or progressive pain onset. Surg Radiol Anat. 2014;36(2):167-72. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Macnicol MF, Voutsinas S. Surgical treatment of the symptomatic accessory navicular. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1984;66(2):218-26. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Kidner FC. The prehallux (Accessory Scaphoid) in its relation to flat foot. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1929;11(4):831-37. [Link]
- Canale ST, Beaty H. Pes planus. In: Murphy GA, ed. Campbell's Operative Orthopaedics. 11th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2007. p.4027-28. [Link]
- Bernaerts A, Vanhoenacker FM, Van de Perre S, De Schepper AM, Parizel PM. Accessory navicular bone: not such a normal variant. JBR-BTR. 2004;87(5):250-2. [PubMed]
- Prichasuk S, Sinphurmsukskul O. Kidner procedure for symptomatic accessory navicular and its relation to pes planus. Foot Ankle Int. 1995;16(8):500-3. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- 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. 2003;24(6):486-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
.: Process List