Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Accessory navicular bone incidence in Chinese patients: a retrospective analysis of X-rays following trauma or progressive pain onset

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Optimal treatment of symptomatic accessory navicular bones, generally asymptomatic ‘extra’ ossicles in the front interior ankle, remains debated.

Objective

Incidence and type of accessory navicular bones in Chinese patients were examined as a basis for improving diagnostic and treatment standards.

Methods

Accessory navicular bones were retrospectively examined in 1,625 (790 men and 835 women) patients with trauma-induced or progressive symptomatic ankle pain grouped by gender and age from August 2011 to May 2012. Anterior–posterior/oblique X-ray images; presence; type; affected side; modified Coughlin’s classification types 1, 2A, 2B, and 3; and subgroups a–c were recorded.

Results

Accessory navicular bones were found in 329 (20.2 %) patients (143 men and 186 women; mean age, 47.24 ± 18.34, ranging 14–96 years). Patients aged 51–60 exhibited most accessory navicular bones (29.7 %), with risk slightly higher in women and generally increasing from minimal 10.9 % at ages 11–20 to age 51 and thereafter declining to 0.4 % by age 90. The incidence was 41.6 % for Type 1 (Type 1a: 9.1 %, Type 1b: 15.5 %, and Type 1c: 19.4 %), 36.8 % for Type 2 (Type 2Aa: 2.1 %, Type 2Ab: 13.7 %, Type 2Ac: 5.1 %, Type 2Ba: 2.1 %, 2Bb: 2.1 %, and 2Bc: 11.6 %), and 21.6 % for Type 3 (Type 3a: 4.5 %, Type 3b: 14 %, and Type 3c: 3.0 %).

Conclusions

Approximately one-fifth (20.3 %) of ankle pain patients exhibited accessory navicular bones, with Type 2 most common and middle-aged patients most commonly affected. Thus, accessory navicular bones may be less rare than previously thought, underlying treatable symptomatic conditions of foot pain and deformity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bencardino JT, Rosenberg ZS (2001) MR imaging and CT in the assessment of osseous abnormalities of the ankle and foot. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 9:567–578

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Chen YJ, Hsu RW, Liang SC (1997) Degeneration of the accessory navicular synchondrosis presenting as rupture of the posterior tibial tendon. J Bone Jt Surg Am 79:1791–1798

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Choi YS, Lee KT, Kang HS, Kim EK (2004) MR imaging findings of painful type II accessory navicular bone: correlation with surgical and pathologic studies. Korean J Radiol 5:274–279

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Coskun N, Yuksel M, Cevener M et al (2009) Incidence of accessory ossicles and sesamoid bones in the feet: a radiographic study of the Turkish subjects. Surg Radiol Anat 31:19–24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Coughlin M (2006) Sesamoid and accessory bones of the foot. In: Coughlin M (ed) Surgery of the foot and ankle, 8th edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 590–595

    Google Scholar 

  6. Fredrick LA, Beall DP, Ly JQ, Fish JR (2005) The symptomatic accessory navicular bone: a report and discussion of the clinical presentation. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 34:47–50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Geist E (1914) Supernumerary bone of the foot: a roentgen study of the feet of 100 normal individuals. Am J Orthop Surg 12:403

    Google Scholar 

  8. Geist ES (1925) The accessory scaphoid bone. J Bone Jt Surg 7:570–574

    Google Scholar 

  9. Grogan DP, Gasser SI, Ogden JA (1989) The painful accessory navicular: a clinical and histopathological study. Foot Ankle 10:164–169

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kiter E, Gunal I, Turgut A, Kose N (2000) Evaluation of simple excision in the treatment of symptomatic accessory navicular associated with flat feet. J Orthop Sci 5:333–335

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lawson JP (1994) International Skeletal Society Lecture in honor of Howard D. Dorfman. Clinically significant radiologic anatomic variants of the skeleton. Am J Roentgenol 163:249–255

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Lawson JP, Ogden JA, Sella E, Barwick KW (1984) The painful accessory navicular. Skelet Radiol 12:250–262

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Mellado JM, Ramos A, Salvado E, Camins A, Danus M, Sauri A (2003) Accessory ossicles and sesamoid bones of the ankle and foot: imaging findings, clinical significance and differential diagnosis. Eur Radiol 13(Suppl 4):L164–L177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Miller TT (2002) Painful accessory bones of the foot. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 6:153–161

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mosel LD, Kat E, Voyvodic F (2004) Imaging of the symptomatic type II accessory navicular bone. Australas Radiol 48:267–271

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Mygind HB (1953) The accessory tarsal scaphoid; clinical features and treatment. Acta Orthop Scand 23:142–151

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Nakayama S, Sugimoto K, Takakura Y, Tanaka Y, Kasanami R (2005) Percutaneous drilling of symptomatic accessory navicular in young athletes. Am J Sports Med 33:531–535

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Romanowski CA, Barrington NA (1992) The accessory navicular—an important cause of medial foot pain. Clin Radiol 46:261–264

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sarrafian SK (1993) Osteology. In: Sarrafian SK (ed) Anatomy of the foot and ankle. Lippincott, Philadelphia, pp 89–112

    Google Scholar 

  20. Sella EJ, Lawson JP (1987) Biomechanics of the accessory navicular synchondrosis. Foot Ankle 8:156–163

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedics, Huashan Hospital Fudan University, Shanghai, 200040, People’s Republic of China

    Jiazhang Huang, Yijun Zhang, Xin Ma, Xu Wang, Chao Zhang & Li Chen

Authors
  1. Jiazhang Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yijun Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xin Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Xu Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Chao Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Li Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xin Ma.

Additional information

J. Huang and Y. Zhang contributed equally to this study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Huang, J., Zhang, Y., Ma, X. et al. Accessory navicular bone incidence in Chinese patients: a retrospective analysis of X-rays following trauma or progressive pain onset. Surg Radiol Anat 36, 167–172 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-013-1158-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00276-013-1158-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation