Foot pain and the accessory navicular bone

1962 ◽  
Vol 37 (10) ◽  
pp. 471-475 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. H. Chater
2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 436-444 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heba Kalbouneh ◽  
Omar Alajoulin ◽  
Mohammad Alsalem ◽  
Noor Humoud ◽  
Jamil Shawaqfeh ◽  
...  

2001 ◽  
Vol 121 (9) ◽  
pp. 546-547 ◽  
Author(s):  
I˙. Günal ◽  
K. Yörüko˘glu

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 806-808
Author(s):  
Alioune Badara Gueye ◽  
Mouhamadou Niane ◽  
Charles Valérie Alain Kinkpé ◽  
Abdoulaye Ndoye Diop ◽  
Mohamed Daffé ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
pp. 69-69
Author(s):  
Kalpesh Vaghela ◽  
Massimo Marconetto ◽  
Marco Marcarelli

2018 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 159-161
Author(s):  
Patrick Mulkerrin ◽  
Ray McLoughlin ◽  
Shaun T O’Keeffe

2020 ◽  
pp. 107110072096482
Author(s):  
Mustafa Kara ◽  
Serkan Bayram

Background: This study aimed to compare the radiologic parameters of both feet in patients with unilateral accessory navicular bone (ANB) and evaluate the differences from one another. Methods: Forty-one patients with unilateral ANB volunteered to participate in this study from August 2019 to January 2020. Patient data, including age, sex, body mass index (BMI), type of ANB, and presence of symptoms were obtained. Group 1 comprised 23 patients with asymptomatic unilateral ANB, and group 2 comprised 18 patients with symptomatic unilateral ANB. Seven radiologic parameters were evaluated assessing hindfoot, midfoot, and forefoot alignment—calcaneal pitch angle, talocalcaneal angle, tibiocalcaneal angle, naviculocuboid overlap (NCO), talonavicular coverage angle (TNCA), anteroposterior talo–first metatarsal angle, and lateral talo–first metatarsal angle. Results: The mean age of patients was 40.1 years in group 1 and 42.6 years in group 2. Mean BMI was 25.2 in group 1 and 26.6 in group 2. No significant differences were noted in the radiologic parameters between the ANB and contralateral sides in all patients. The radiologic parameters of both feet in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients were not significantly different. No significant differences were noted between the affected sides of type 1 and 2 ANB and contralateral sides in terms of the radiologic parameters. BMI was significantly correlated with NCO and TNCA. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that the presence of an accessory navicular bone did not affect radiologic parameters of the foot. Radiologic parameters of both feet in symptomatic patients were not significantly different. Level of Evidence: Level III, diagnostic, comparative study.


1999 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
SAURIN SHAH ◽  
DWIGHT M. ACHONG

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document