Os Navicular Syndrome: A Symptomatic Accessory Ossicle of the Foot
Abstract
Accessory navicular bone occurs due to failure of fusion of a secondary ossification center with the navicular. It is the second most common ossicle of the foot, with majority of them being identified incidentally on imaging studies. We report a case of 45-year-old female who presented with complaints of pain and localized redness over the medial aspect of the right foot which was aggravated on walking. This brief review aims to describe the pathophysiology, radiographic findings and management of Os naviculare syndrome. We also wish to highlight to the physicians that it must be suspected in patients with localized pain over the medial aspect of the midfoot without obvious trauma. The presence of accessory navicular should not be disregarded as an incidental radiological variant in a symptomatic patient.
[2] Gómez MPA, Aparisi F, Bartoloni A, Fons MAF, Battista G, Guglielmi G, et al. Anatomical variation in the ankle and foot: from incidental finding to inductor of pathology. Part II: midfoot and forefoot. Insights into Imaging 2019; 10:69. https://doi. org/10.1186/s13244-019-0747-1
[3] Mosel LD, Kat E, Voyvodic F. Imaging of the symptomatic type II [9] accessory navicular bone. Australas Radiol. 2004; 48(2):267- 71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1673.2004.01286.x
[4] Miller TT, Staron RB, Feldman F, Parisien M, Glucksman WJ, Gandolfo LH. The symptomatic accessory tarsal navicular bone: assessment with MR imaging. Radiology. 1995; 195(3):849-53. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.195.3.7754020
[5] Vora BMK, Wong BSS. Common accessory ossicles of the foot: imaging features, pitfalls and associated pathology. Singapore Med J 2018; 59(4):183-189. https://doi.org/10.11622/ smedj.2018046
[6] 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–L177. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s00330-003-2011-8
[7] Chuang YW, Tsai WS, Chen KH, Hsu HC. Clinical use of high- resolution ultrasonography for the diagnosis of type II accessory navicular bone. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2012; 91:177–181. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHM.0b013e318232846d
[8] Al-Khudairi N, Welck MJ, Brandao B, Saifuddin A. The relationship of MRI findings and clinical features in symptomatic and asymptomatic os naviculare. Clinical Radiol 2019; 74 (1):80. e1-80.e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2018.09.013
[9] Mosel LD, Kat E, Voyvodic F. Imaging of the symptomatic type II accessory navicular bone. Australas Radiol 2004; 48 (2):267– 271. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1673.2004.01286.x
[10] Takahashi M, Sakai T, Sairyo K, Takao S, Mima S, Yasui N. Magnetic resonance imaging in adolescent symptomatic navicular tuberosity. J Med Invest 2014; 61:22–27. https://doi. org/10.2152/jmi.61.22
| Files | ||
| Issue | Vol 7 No 3 (2022): May-June | |
| Section | Case Report(s) | |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.18502/crcp.v7i3.11123 | |
| Keywords | ||
| Foot Sesamoid Accessory Ossicle Radiology Tibialis posterior tendon | ||
| Rights and permissions | |
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
