Painful type II os naviculare: introduction of a standardized, reproducible classification system

Abstract

Objective

To provide a novel MRI classification system for the symptomatic type II os naviculare by creating a standardized grading of associated bone marrow edema (BME) and correlating with patient symptoms.

Methods

BME was classified on an ordinal scale: grade 1, faint signal immediately adjacent to the synchondrosis; grade 2, intermediate signal within the os and navicular tuberosity without extending to the navicular body; grade 3, intense signal extending to the navicular body. BME on 59 MRIs was independently graded by three radiologists. Inter- and intra-observer agreement was analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficient. Univariate and multivariate analyses assessed for patient and imaging characteristics predictive of subjective pain score. A cohort of 82 patients without BME represented a control group.

Results

Inter-observer agreement of BME grade was 0.95 (CI 0.93–0.97) and intra-observer was 0.92 (CI 0.87–0.96), indicating excellent agreement. In patients with BME, predictors of more severe pain were longer duration of pain (p = 0.02) and presence of soft tissue edema overlying the os naviculare (p < 0.001). One hundred percent of subjects with BME localized their pain to the medial midfoot (59/59) versus 25.6% (21/82) of controls (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

This novel grading system provides reliable quantification of BME associated with os naviculare, which is a specific cause of medial foot/ankle pain. Early diagnosis is important as pain severity worsens with longer duration of symptoms. Pain severity is correlated with soft tissue edema overlying the os, which may be secondary to extrinsic compression, reactive to biomechanical stress, or reflect direct trauma.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

References

  1. 1.

    Mygind HB. The accessory tarsal scaphoid; clinical features and treatment. Acta Orthop Scand. 1953;23(2):142–51. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453675308991207.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Lawson JP, Ogden JA, Sella E, Barwick KW. The painful accessory navicular. Skelet Radiol. 1984;12(4):250–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00349506.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Sella EJ, Lawson JP, Ogden JA. The accessory navicular synchondrosis. Clin Orthop. 1986;209:280–5.

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Romanowski CA, Barrington NA. The accessory navicular--an important cause of medial foot pain. Clin Radiol. 1992;46(4):261–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0009-9260(05)80167-9.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Sella EJ, Lawson JP. Biomechanics of the accessory navicular synchondrosis. Foot Ankle. 1987;8(3):156–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/107110078700800310.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Zadek I, Gold AM. The accessory tarsal scaphoid. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1948;30A(4):957–68.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Kiter E, Günal I, Karatosun V, Korman E. The relationship between the tibialis posterior tendon and the accessory navicular. Ann Anat. 2000;182(1):65–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0940-9602(00)80130-2.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Jegal H, Park YU, Kim JS, Choo HS, Seo YU, Lee KT. Accessory navicular syndrome in athlete vs general population. Foot Ankle Int. 2016;37(8):862–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100716644791.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Grogan DP, Gasser SI, Ogden JA. The painful accessory navicular: a clinical and histopathological study. Foot Ankle. 1989;10(3):164–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/107110078901000310.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Shah S, Achong DM. The painful accessory navicular bone: scintigraphic and radiographic correlation. Clin Nucl Med. 1999;24(2):125–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003072-199902000-00012.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    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.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Choi YS, Lee KT, Kang HS, Kim EK. MR imaging findings of painful type II accessory navicular bone: correlation with surgical and pathologic studies. Korean J Radiol. 2004;5(4):274–9. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2004.5.4.274.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Mosel LD, Kat E, Voyvodic F. Imaging of the symptomatic type II accessory navicular bone. Australas Radiol. 2004;48(2):267–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1673.2004.01286.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Sampat MP, Whitman GJ, Stephens TW, et al. The reliability of measuring physical characteristics of spiculated masses on mammography. Br J Radiol. 2006;79 Spec No 2:S134–40. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/96723280.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Rosner B. Fundamentals of biostatistics. 8th ed; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Kang Y, Lee JW, Koh YH, et al. New MRI grading system for the cervical canal stenosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197(1):W134–40. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.10.5560.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Chung J-W, Chu I-T. Outcome of fusion of a painful accessory navicular to the primary navicular. Foot Ankle Int. 2009;30(2):106–9. https://doi.org/10.3113/FAI-2009-0106.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Kopp FJ, Marcus RE. Clinical outcome of surgical treatment of the symptomatic accessory navicular. Foot Ankle Int. 2004;25(1):27–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/107110070402500106.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Prichasuk S, Sinphurmsukskul O. Kidner procedure for symptomatic accessory navicular and its relation to pes planus. Foot Ankle Int. 1995;16(8):500–3. https://doi.org/10.1177/107110079501600807.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Pretell-Mazzini J, Murphy RF, Sawyer JR, et al. Surgical treatment of symptomatic accessory navicular in children and adolescents. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2014;43(3):110–3.

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Cha S-M, Shin H-D, Kim K-C, Lee J-K. Simple excision vs the Kidner procedure for type 2 accessory navicular associated with flatfoot in pediatric population. Foot Ankle Int. 2013;34(2):167–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071100712467616.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeffrey A. Belair.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

William Morrison: Patent owner, Apriomed. Founder and Medical Director, Trace Orthopedics.

The remaining authors have no disclosures.

Ethical approval

This retrospective study was carried out in compliance with Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) regulations and with approval by our Institutional Review Board (IRB).

Informed consent

A waiver of informed consent was granted by our IRB.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kamel, S.I., Belair, J.A., Hegazi, T.M. et al. Painful type II os naviculare: introduction of a standardized, reproducible classification system. Skeletal Radiol (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00256-020-03503-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Painful type II os naviculare
  • Accessory navicular syndrome
  • Medial foot pain
  • Synchondrosis
  • Bone marrow edema
  • Posterior tibial tendinosis