The Painful Accessory Navicular Bone

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.

Download Full-text

Genetic Influence on Accessory Navicular Bone in the Foot: A Korean Twin and Family Study

Twin Research and Human Genetics ◽

10.1017/thg.2017.21 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 20 (3) ◽

pp. 236-241 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

In Yae Cheong ◽

Hyo Jeong Kang ◽

Hyeonyoung Ko ◽

Joohon Sung ◽

Yun-Mi Song ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Family Relationships ◽

Family Study ◽

Family Relationship ◽

Radiographic Examination ◽

Posterior Tibial Tendon ◽

Type Ii ◽

Navicular Bone ◽

Sibling Pairs ◽

Accessory Navicular ◽

Foot Disease

An accessory navicular bone (AN) is the most common accessory ossicle in the foot. The presence of an AN bone can trigger various foot problems, such as posterior tibial tendon pathology, flattening of the medial longitudinal arch, and medial foot pain. Despite the clinical influence of presence of an AN in foot disease, the research regarding its inheritance is still insufficient. A total of 135 pairs of monozygotic (MZ) twins, 25 pairs of dizygotic (DZ) twins, and 676 singletons from families were enrolled in order to estimate genetic influences on AN. After confirmation of zygosity and family relationship with a tandem repeat marker kit and questionnaires, the presence and type of the AN was classified through bilateral feet radiographic examination. The heritability of an AN was estimated using quantitative genetic analysis based on a variance decomposition model considering various types of family relationships: father–offspring pair, mother–offspring pair, and pooled DZ twin and sibling pairs. As a result, approximately 40.96% of the participants in this study had an AN in either foot, with type II being the most common type. The heritability for the presence of any type of an AN in any foot was estimated as 0.88 (95% CI [0.82, 0.94]) after adjusting for age and sex. Specifically, type II AN showed the highest heritability of 0.82 (95% CI [0.71–0.93]). The high heritability of an AN found in this large twin and family study suggests that an AN is determined by the substantial influence of genetic factor.

Download Full-text

Symptomatic accessory navicular bone: A case series

The Egyptian Rheumatologist ◽

10.1016/j.ejr.2017.02.003 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 39 (4) ◽

pp. 263-266 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Sahibzada N. Mansoor ◽

Farooq A. Rathore

Keyword(s):

Case Series ◽

Navicular Bone ◽

Accessory Navicular

Download Full-text

Foot pain and the accessory navicular bone

Irish Journal of Medical Science (1971 -) ◽

10.1007/bf02957187 ◽

1962 ◽

Vol 37 (10) ◽

pp. 471-475 ◽

Cited By ~ 11

Author(s):

E. H. Chater

Keyword(s):

Navicular Bone ◽

Foot Pain ◽

Accessory Navicular

Download Full-text

Accessory navicular bone: when ankle pain does not originate from the ankle

Clinical Rheumatology ◽

10.1007/s10067-007-0624-z ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 26 (12) ◽

pp. 2143-2144 ◽

Cited By ~ 8

Author(s):

Ahi Sema Issever ◽

Kirsten Minden ◽

Iris Eshed ◽

Kay-Geert A. Hermann

Keyword(s):

Navicular Bone ◽

Ankle Pain ◽

Accessory Navicular

Download Full-text

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

Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association ◽

10.7547/20-231 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Serkan Bayram ◽

Mustafa Kara

Keyword(s):

Contralateral Side ◽

Navicular Bone ◽

First Metatarsal ◽

Radiological Parameters ◽

Metatarsal Angle ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Different Types ◽

Accessory Navicular

BACKGROUND:In this study, we evaluated to the relationship between the type of accessory navicular bone (ANB) and radiological parameters of foot in patients with bilateral ANB of different types. METHODS:Patients with bilateral ANB of different types participated in this study, from May 2019 to April 2020. Patient data, including age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and presence of symptoms were obtained. We aimed to compare the radiological parameters of both the feet for evaluate the differences from one another in patients with bilateral ANB of different types (one side type 1 and contralateral side type 2) because the foot angles may differ in each person. Seven radiographic parameters were measured, including calcaneal pitch angle, talocalcaneal angle, tibiocalcaneal angle, naviculocuboid overlap, talonavicular coverage angle, anteroposterior talo-first metatarsal angle, and the lateral talo-first metatarsal angle, which evaluated hindfoot, midfoot, and forefoot alignment. RESULTS: Twenty patients (13 women and 7 men) with a mean age (and standard deviation) of 38.5 {plus minus} 12.3 years were included in the study. The patients had a mean height of 168.1 {plus minus} 7.1 cm, a mean weight of 77.2 {plus minus} 10.5 kg, and a mean BMI of 27.4 {plus minus} 4.3 kg/m2. There was no significant difference between type 1 and type 2 in all radiological parameters. There was no significant correlation between radiological parameters and age, BMI, or the presence of symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: We found that the type of ANB had no effect on the radiological measurements of the foot in which we evaluate the parameters patients with bilateral ANB of different types. Additionally, age, BMI, and the presence of symptoms, also demonstrated no correlation with the radiological parameters of the foot.

Download Full-text