Journals / Şişli Etfal Hastanesi Tıp Bülteni / 2011 / Cilt: 45 - Sayı: 2

The incidence and distribution of accessory ossicles of the foot

Ayaktaki aksesuar kemiklerin görülme sıklığı ve dağılımı

Pages
44–47
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Thus, we have made an overall assesment about the incidence of accessory ossicles of the foot and distribution in our region.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Accessory ossicles of the foot are generally asymptomatic.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In our study, anterior-posterior and lateral radiography of anklefoot of 277 female and male cases with an age range of 21 to 83 years were examined retrospectively with regard to accessoy ossicles.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Thus, we have made an overall assesment about the incidence of accessory ossicles of the foot and distribution in our region.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Accessory ossicles of the foot are generally asymptomatic. Accessory ossicles could be confused with avulsion fractures in the presence of trauma. Locations and frequency of accessory ossicles should be well known to reduce incorrect preliminary diagnosis. In our study, anterior-posterior and lateral radiography of anklefoot of 277 female and male cases with an age range of 21 to 83 years were examined retrospectively with regard to accessoy ossicles. Accessory ossicles were examined according to the sex, frequencies and divisions of the bones, bilaterality and coexistence. Accessory ossicles were determined in %45,4 of 277 cases. The most common accessory ossicles were accessory navicular bone (65,8%), os peroneum (16,6%), os trigonum (11,9%), os vesalianum(7,1%), os subtibiale (3,9%), os talotibiale (3,9%), os intermetatarseum (2,3%) and os intercuneiforme (2,3%). Accessory ossicles were seen in 45,8% of all female cases and 44,4% of all male cases. The most common accessory ossicle in female and male cases was accessory navicular bone. The accessory ossicles were seen in 55,5% of cases in both of the feet, in 30,9% of cases right unilaterally and in 13,4% of cases left unilaterally. The most common seen bilaterally accessory ossicle was accessory navicular bone. We determined the coexistencies of two different accessory ossicles as 10,6% of cases and three different accessory ossicles as 2,6% of cases. Thus, we have made an overall assesment about the incidence of accessory ossicles of the foot and distribution in our region.

Özet

Ayaktaki aksesuar kemikler genellikle asemptomatiktir. Aksesuar kemikler travma varlığında yanlışlıkla avulsiyon kırıkları olarak değerlendirilebilir. Yanlış ön tanıları azaltmak için aksesuar kemiklerin lokalizasyonları ve sıklığı iyi bilinmelidir. Çalışmamızda yaşları 21-83 arasında değişen, kadın ve erkek, 277 olguya ait, ayak bileği-ayak ön-arka ve yan radyografileri, aksesuar kemikler açısından retrospektif olarak incelendi. Aksesuar kemiklerin cinsiyete göre görülme sıklığı, dağılımı, bilateral ve bir arada olma durumları araştırıldı. İncelenen 277 olgunun %45,4’ünde aksesuar kemik saptandı. En sık görülen aksesuar kemikler aksesuar navikular kemik (%65,8), os peroneum (%16,6), os trigonum (%11,9), os vesalianum (%7,1), os subtibiale (%3,9), os talotibiale (%3,9), os intermetatarseum (%2,3) ve os interkuneiforme (%2,3) idi. Aksesuar kemikler, tüm kadın olguların %45,8’inde ve tüm erkek olguların %44,4’ünde görüldü. Kadın ve erkek olgularda en sık görülen aksesuar kemik, aksesuar navikular kemikdi. Aksesuar kemikler olguların %55,5’inde her iki ayakta, %30,9’unda sağ ayakta ve %13,4’ünde sol ayakta görüldü. En sık bilateral olarak görülen aksesuar kemik, aksesuar navikular kemikti. Olguların %10,6’sında iki farklı aksesuar kemiğin ve %2,6’sında üç farklı aksesuar kemiğin bir arada olma durumu saptandı. Böylece bölgemizde ayak aksesuar kemiklerinin görülme sıklığı ve dağılımı hakkında genel bir değerlendirme yapmış olduk.

🔖

Cite This Article

KIR, H., KANDEMİR, S., OLGAÇ, M., YILDIRIM, O., ŞEN, G. (2011). The incidence and distribution of accessory ossicles of the foot. Şişli Etfal Hastanesi Tıp Bülteni, Cilt: 45 - Sayı: 2, 44–47. https://ajindex.com/articles/364209

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Coughlin MJ. Sesamoid and accessory bones of the foot. In: Surgery of the foot and ankle. 8th edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2006; pp 438-494
  2. Case DT, Ossenberg NS, Burnett SE. Os intermetatarseum: a heritable accessory bone of the human foot. Am J Phys Anthropol 1998;107:199-209
  3. Lawson JP. International skeletal society lecture in honor of Howard D. Dorfman. Clinically significant radiologic anatomic variants of the skeleton. Am J Roentgenol 1994;163:249-255
  4. Romanowski CA, Barrington NA. The accessory navicularan important cause of medial foot pain. Clin Radiol 1992;46:261-4
  5. Le Minor JM. Comparative anatomy and signiWcance of the sesamoid bone of the peroneus longus muscle (os peroneum). J Anat 1987;151:85-99
  6. Bencardino JT, Rosenberg ZS. MR imaging and CT in the assesment of osseous abnormalities of the ankle and foot. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2001;9:567-578
  7. Miller TT. Painful accessory bones of the foot. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 2002;6:153-161
  8. Tsuruta T, Shiokawa Y, Kato A, Matsumoto T, Yamazoe Y, Oike T et al. Radiological study of the accessory skeletal elements in the foot and ankle. Nippon Seikeigeka Gakkai Zasshi 1981;55:357– 370
  9. Kruse RW, Chen J. Accessory ossicles of the foot: clinical significance. Mil Med 1995;160:464-467
  10. Sarrafian SK. Osteology. In: Sarrafian SK (ed) Anatomy of the foot and ankle, Lippincott, Philadelphia, 1993; pp 89-112
  11. Keats TE. The foot. In: Keats TE (ed) Atlas of normal roentgen variants that may simulate disease, Mosby-Year Book, St. Louis, 1992; pp 615–704
  12. Coskun N, Yuksel M, Cevener M et al. Incidence of accessory ossicles and sesamoid bones in the feet. A radiographic study of the Turkish subjects. Surg Radiol Anat 2009;31:19-24.