Do Not Judge an Ossicle by Its Size: Type 1 Ossicles Associated With Posterior Tibial Tendon Dysfunction.
Journal
Journal of computer assisted tomography
ISSN: 1532-3145
Titre abrégé: J Comput Assist Tomogr
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7703942
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
pubmed:
26
9
2020
medline:
15
12
2020
entrez:
25
9
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Patients with type II navicular ossicles have traditionally been considered to be symptomatic, whereas patients with type I and III bones are considered asymptomatic without additional relevant imaging findings. The main objective of this study is to investigate the association of type I os naviculare with clinical symptomology and magnetic resonance imaging findings in comparison to types II and III ossicles. Three hundred nine subjects with accessory navicular bone types were identified, and their associations with focal navicular pain, pes planus alignment, ossicle or proximal navicular bone marrow edema pattern presence (BMEP), and posterior tibial tendon (PTT) sheath fluid distension were assessed. Fisher's exact test was used for categorical data and unpaired t tests for continuous data. Intraobserver and interobserver agreement was calculated. Overall, 28% (85/309) of type I, 57% (176/309) of type II, and 16% (48/309) of type III accessory bones had focal navicular pain (type I vs type II, P = 0.17; type III vs type II, P = 0.001). Thirty-two percent of type I, 38% type II, and 8% type III accessory bones had pes planus (type I vs II, P = 0.3; type III vs type II, P = 0.001). Nine percent of type I, 48% of type II, and 6% of type III accessory bones had BMEP (type I vs II, P < 0.0001; type III vs type II, P = 0.001). Thirty-three percent of type I, 42% of type II, and 6% of type III accessory bones had PTT intrasheath fluid (type I vs II, P = 0.16; type III vs type II, P = 0.001). Symptomatic type I navicular ossicle patients demonstrate an increased tendency to present with early findings of PTT dysfunction and morphologic pes planus to a greater degree than previously recognized. 3.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32976260
doi: 10.1097/RCT.0000000000001089
pii: 00004728-202011000-00027
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
993-997Références
Lawson JP, Ogden JA, Sella E, et al. The painful accessory navicular. Skeletal Radiol. 1984;12:250–262.
Miller TT, Staron RB, Feldman F, et al. The symptomatic accessory tarsal navicular bone: assessment with MR imaging. Radiology. 1995;195:849–853.
Mellado JM, Ramos A, Salvadó E, et al. Accessory ossicles and sesamoid bones of the ankle and foot: imaging findings, clinical significance and differential diagnosis. Eur Radiol. 2003;13(suppl 4):L164–L177.
Perdikakis E, Grigoraki E, Karantanas A. Os naviculare: the multi-ossicle configuration of a normal variant. Skeletal Radiol. 2011;40:85–88.
Keles Coskun N, Arican RY, Utuk A, et al. The incidence of accessory navicular bone types in Turkish subjects. Surg Radiol Anat. 2009;3:675–679.
Romanowski CA, Barrington NA. The accessory navicular–an important cause of medial foot pain. Clin Radiol. 1992;46:261–264.
Takahashi M, Sakai T, Sairyo K, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in adolescent symptomatic navicular tuberosity. J Med Invest. 2014;61:22–27.
Mosel LD, Kat E, Voyvodic F. Imaging of the symptomatic type II accessory navicular bone. Australas Radiol. 2004;48:267–271.
Kiter E, Erdag N, Karatosun V, et al. Tibialis posterior tendon abnormalities in feet with accessory navicular bone and flatfoot. Acta Orthop Scand. 1999;70:618–621.
Narvaez J, Narvaez JA, Sanchez-Marquez A, et al. Posterior tibial tendon dysfunction as a cause of acquired flatfoot in the adult: value of magnetic resonance imaging. Br J Rheumatol. 1997;36:136–139.
Mygind HB. The accessory tarsal scaphoid; clinical features and treatment. Acta Orthop Scand. 1953;23:142–151.
Ugolini PA, Raikin SM. The accessory navicular. Foot Ankle Clin. 2004;9:165–180.
Sella EJ, Lawson JP, Ogden JA. The accessory navicular synchondrosis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986:280–285.
Gonzalez FM, Harmouche E, Robertson DD, et al. Tenosynovial fluid as an indication of early posterior tibial tendon dysfunction in patients with normal tendon appearance. Skeletal Radiol. 2019;48:1377–1383.
Chiu NT, Jou IM, Lee BF, et al. Symptomatic and asymptomatic accessory navicular bones: findings of Tc-99m MDP bone scintigraphy. Clin Radiol. 2000;55:353–355.
Jennings MM, Christensen JC. The effects of sectioning the spring ligament on rearfoot stability and posterior tibial tendon efficiency. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2008;47:219–224.
Pisani G. About the pathogenesis of the so-called adult acquired pes planus. Foot Ankle Surg. 2010;16:1–2.
Flores DV, Mejía Gómez C, Fernández Hernando M, et al. Adult acquired flatfoot deformity: anatomy, biomechanics, staging, and imaging findings. Radiographics. 2019;39:1437–1460.
Garra G, Singer AJ, Domingo A, et al. The Wong-Baker pain FACES scale measures pain, not fear. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2013;29:17–20.
Funk DA, Cass JR, Johnson KA. Acquired adult flat foot secondary to posterior tibial-tendon pathology. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1986;68:95–102.
Kido M, Ikoma K, Imai K, et al. Load response of the medial longitudinal arch in patients with flatfoot deformity: in vivo 3D study. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2013;28:568–573.
Kurashige T, Tsunoda Y. Adult flat foot with multiple accessory navicular bones treated surgically: a case report and review of the literature. J Foot Ankle Surg. 2019;58:1019–1024.
Pomeroy GC, Pike RH, Beals TC, et al. Acquired flatfoot in adults due to dysfunction of the posterior tibial tendon. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999;81:1173–1182.
Pinney SJ, Lin SS. Current concept review: acquired adult flatfoot deformity. Foot Ankle Int. 2006;27:66–75.
Pastore D, Dirim B, Wangwinyuvirat M, et al. Complex distal insertions of the tibialis posterior tendon: detailed anatomic and MR imaging investigation in cadavers. Skeletal Radiol. 2008;37:849–855.