
==== Front
Surg Radiol Anat
Surg Radiol Anat
Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy
0930-1038
1279-8517
Springer Paris Paris

39136746
3459
10.1007/s00276-024-03459-x
Original Article
The prevalence and anatomy of accessory navicular bone: a meta-analysis
http://orcid.org/0009-0003-2648-5851
Stolarz Kacper 12
http://orcid.org/0009-0005-4197-1115
Osiowski Aleksander 12
http://orcid.org/0009-0007-2800-0845
Preinl Maciej 12
http://orcid.org/0009-0003-7533-2691
Osiowski Maksymilian 12
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5135-6750
Jasiewicz Barbara 3
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7152-2012
Taterra Dominik dominik.taterra@gmail.com

23
1 https://ror.org/03bqmcz70 grid.5522.0 0000 0001 2337 4740 Faculty of Medicine, Jagiellonian University Medical College, św. Anny 12, Krakow, 31-008 Poland
2 Ortho and Spine Research Group, Zakopane, Poland
3 https://ror.org/03bqmcz70 grid.5522.0 0000 0001 2337 4740 Department of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Balzera 15, Zakopane, 34-500 Poland
13 8 2024
13 8 2024
2024
46 10 17311743
20 7 2024
5 8 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Purpose

There have been over 40 descriptions of the common developmental variants of the accessory ossicles of the feet. Although predominantly asymptomatic, they sometimes may be linked to painful conditions. One of the most common accessory ossicles in the foot is the accessory navicular bone (AN), located on the medial side of the foot. Our research provides a first meta-analysis on this topic that establishes its frequency by contrasting 39 studies from across the globe.

Methods

Up to February 2024, PubMed and Embase databases were thoroughly searched for research on the AN. Eligible data regarding AN prevalence was extracted. This study strictly adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

Results

A total of 39 studies, 11,015 patients, and 36,837 feet were analyzed in our study. The pooled prevalence estimate (PPE) of AN was found to be 17.5% (95%CI: 11.5–25.7) and 12.6% (95%CI: 10.1–15.5) in patients and feet analyses, respectively. Accessory navicular occurred bilaterally in 50.0% of patients, with similar distribution in gender-based groups (21.1% of males and 22.0% of females were confirmed with AN). Accessory navicular was most prevalent in the East Asian population (38.4%) and least prevalent in North Americans (8.0%). No significant differences in AN prevalence were found when comparing different imaging modalities (X-ray and cadaver dissection).

Conclusion

Accessory navicular is a common finding in imaging studies. Its prevalence depends on the population covered by the study but is not affected by the patient’s gender or the imaging modality utilized for AN assessment.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00276-024-03459-x.

Keywords

Accessory navicular
Os naviculare
Accessory ossicle
Foot and ankle anatomical variant
issue-copyright-statement© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

The accessory navicular bone, also known as the os tibiale externum or os naviculare secundarium, is an anatomic variant that can be encountered on the medial side of the foot and ankle. Accessory navicular (AN), similarly to other accessory foot ossicles, develops due to the inability of the secondary ossification center to fuse with the primary bone, which in this scenario is the navicular bone [39]. Additionally, the AN may form as a sesamoid bone within the posterior tibial tendon, being, in such a case, anatomically separate from the navicular bone [39] (Fig 1).

Fig. 1 Illustrative diagram presenting the most common location of accessory navicular

Bauhin, in 1605, is believed to be the first to describe accessory navicular [31]. In 1914, Emil S. Geist proposed the classification that outlines three types of accessory navicular [17]. This classification was later slightly modified by Sella and Lawson in 1987 [60]. Today, the most commonly used AN classification is the one outlined by Coughlin [13] (Fig. 2), which distinguishes the following types of accessory navicular: type I, type II with IIA and IIB subtypes, and type III. A type I accessory navicular is a small, circular, or oval-shaped bone fragment situated within the distal fibers of the posterior tibial tendon (PTT), positioned proximally to the attachment site on the navicular bone [29]. In the literature, type I AN is sometimes referred to as the os tibiale externum [48]. Adjacent to the navicular tuberosity, the type II AN is a bigger osseous core that is triangular or heart-shaped. Its typical size is between 8 and 12 mm. A 1–3 mm synchondrosis made of fibrocartilage and/or hyaline cartilage connects it to the navicular tuberosity, and PTT fibers insert straight onto the accessory ossicle [29, 33, 60, 70]. Type II is divided into two subtypes: type A, which has a smaller acute angle connecting it to the navicular tuberosity, and type B, which is positioned more inferiorly [60]. The type III accessory navicular, also known as the cornuate navicular, is distinguished by a visible yet stable navicular tuberosity, which is assumed to develop from the fusion of an accessory navicular with navicular bone by a bony bridge [29].

Fig. 2 Accessory navicular types distinguished by Coughlin’s classification [13] (light coloured – navicular bone, dark coloured – accessory navicular)

The overall prevalence of accessory navicular is believed to fall within the 4–21% range [18, 19, 38, 47, 57], making it one of the most common accessory foot ossicles. When present, accessory navicular is believed to be mostly bilateral (50–90%), with a higher incidence among women [39, 46]. Finding the accessory navicular is usually incidental, as the majority of them remain asymptomatic. However, in small numbers of patients, accessory navicular can be a cause of morbidity [19, 37]. As a result of friction against the footwear, fracture, dislocation or degenerative changes of the AN, patients may struggle with persistent or acute medial foot discomfort or pain, accompanied by swelling, redness, and sensitivity around the navicular tuberosity [14, 39, 48, 67]. It is thought that accessory navicular types I and III are predominantly asymptomatic, while type II accounts for over 70% of all symptomatic cases [10].

The exact prevalence and specific anatomy of accessory navicular remains unclear, as there are many studies presenting contrasting data and no meta-analysis regarding this issue exists to date. Consequently, our study’s objective was to conduct a meta-analysis on the prevalence and anatomy of AN through an evidence-based approach.

Materials and methods

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were strictly followed by the authors of the presented meta-analysis [51]. Since this is a systematic review with meta-analysis, conducting it required neither participant-informed consent nor ethical approval.

Search strategy

A comprehensive search of the major scientific electronic databases, including MEDLINE/PubMed and EMBASE, was carried out up to February 2024. No language or date filters were applied by the writers. The MEDLINE/PubMed search query was as follows:

“accessory navicular bone” OR “accessory navicular” OR “os tibiale externum” OR “os naviculare accessorium” OR “os naviculare secundarium OR „os naviculare” OR „naviculare”.

The search techniques for the EMBASE database followed the same general design, taking into account the specific syntactic needs of this search engine. Following the inclusion of the full texts, a manual search was conducted of the featured articles’ reference lists to see if there were any more publications that would be noteworthy and eligible for inclusion.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

This meta-analysis included original studies concerning any aspects of accessory navicular prevalence. Exclusion criteria included studies offering inadequate or incomplete data, studies conducted on animals, and studies published in inappropriate format (i.e., meta-analysis, review, case report, and conference report).

For every article, at least two writers carried out separate blind assessments. Studies published in languages other than English were translated by researchers fluent in the appropriate language and included in the final analysis. All the writers had to have an extensive discussion and come to a consensus if there was any disagreement.

Extraction strategy and outcomes of interest

Data extraction from the included papers was done by two independent authors using a predetermined electronic spreadsheet. The following data was obtained: name of the primary author, year of publication, study design (retrospective/prospective), description of the population (number of participants, country, age, sex), number of identified accessory navicular, accessory navicular subtypes, and imaging modality utilized in the original study (X-ray, CT, MRI, or cadaver dissection). The prevalence of accessory navicular was calculated as a percentage of all patients or feet (according to what was reported by the authors of the original studies) in which accessory navicular was identified. Since not all studies reported data that allowed to recalculate prevalence based only on patients or feet, a consensus was reached that both prevalence rates were reported.

Quality assessment

The quality and reliability of the included studies were assessed by the reviewers using the AQUA tool [23]. To put it briefly, the tool’s purpose was to look for possible bias [23]. The research looked at five domains: (1) subject and objective; (2) study design; (3) methodology characterization; (4) descriptive anatomy; and (5) reporting of results [23]. Each domain was assigned a risk of bias category, such as “low”, “high”, or “unclear” [23]. The domain was determined to have a “high” risk of bias if a “no” response was given to any signaling question within any of the categories, whereas all “yes” responses indicated a “low” risk of bias [23]. When a study with inconsistent data did not allow for a clear assessment, the “unclear” option was selected [23].

Statistical analysis and graphic design

The meta-analysis was performed for one outcome: accessory navicular prevalence. The division into subgroups was based on the patients’ gender, country of study’s origin, and imaging modality utilized in the study. Two reviewers performed the statistical analysis. The authors conducted the calculations using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis v4 software [5]. The pooled prevalence estimates (PPE) of accessory navicular were computed using a random effects model. To find meaningful differences between the subgroups that were the subject of the analysis, confidence intervals (CIs) were employed. The absence of a statistically significant difference between the two rates was indicated if their confidence intervals overlapped. χ2 and I2 were used to measure the heterogeneity of the included studies. In relation to the I2 statistic, the heterogeneity was found to “may not be significant” at values of 0–40%, “may indicate moderate heterogeneity” at 30–60%, “may indicate substantial heterogeneity” at 50–90%, and “may represent considerable heterogeneity” at 75–100%. When it comes to interpreting heterogeneity, Cochrane’s Q p value < 0.1 was considered significant. Doi plot with LFK index was utilized to assess potential small-study effect indicating publication bias [16]. LFK index was interpreted as follows: absolute values between 0 and 1 = no significant asymmetry (no significant small-study effect); absolute values between 1 and 2 = minor asymmetry (might suggest small-study effect); absolute values greater than 2 = major asymmetry (strongly suggesting presence of small-study effect). Additionally, MetaXL version 5.3 was used to generate forest and Doi plots while Procreate version 5.3 was utilized to create Figs. 1 and 2.

Results

Acquiring the studies

A total 199 unique references were found by the database search after duplicates were eliminated. Eighteen more were acquired by the authors from reference search. A total of 72 papers were assessed in full text. This meta-analysis is based on 39 studies that were found after an eligibility evaluation [1, 2, 4, 6–9, 11, 12, 17, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 32, 34, 35, 40–43, 45, 48–50, 52–54, 58, 59, 62, 63, 65, 66, 68, 69]. The PRISMA flowchart that describes the inclusion procedure is shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3 Flowchart of the meta-analysis

The characteristics of the included studies

The included studies were published between 1892 and 2022. Sixteen studies reported AN prevalence in a total of 11,015 patients. They were conducted in Turkey (3 studies, 1911 patients), South Korea (2 studies, 1242 patients), Italy (2 studies, 585 patients), Canada (1 study, 3619 patients), China (1 study, 1625 patients), Saudi Arabia (1 study, 503 patients), Singapore (1 study, 439 patients), Germany (1 study, 323 patients), Serbia (1 study, 270 patients), Denmark (1 study, 250 patients), Greece (1 study, 148 patients), and the US (1 study, 100 patients). Thirty-five studies reported AN prevalence on a total of 36,837 feet. They were conducted in Germany (7 studies, 9643 feet), Turkey (5 studies, 5937 feet), Japan (4 studies, 5689 feet), the US (4 studies, 1403 feet), South Korea (3 studies, 3016 feet), Jordan (2 studies, 2240 feet), England (2 studies, 1900 feet), Italy (2 studies, 1124 feet), Singapore (2 studies, 959 feet), China (1 study, 3250 feet), Saudi Arabia (1 study, 1006 feet), Denmark (1 study, 500 feet), and Greece (1 study, 170 feet). The analysis was mainly focused on overall AN prevalence and AN subtypes prevalence, with the secondary end points focused on distribution in subgroups based on gender, geographic origin, and imaging modality utilized to assess the prevalence of AN. Distribution in males and females was reported in 12 studies; 39 studies mentioned the applied imaging modality and provided sufficient data to be included in geographic analysis. Table 1 provides specific details about the studies included in the meta-analysis.

Table 1 Detailed characteristics of studies included in the meta-analysis

Study	Region	N of patients	AN in patients	N of feet	AN in feet	
Alsager2022 [1]	Middle East	503	117	1006	194	
Bagley2022 [2]	East Asia	-	-	81	9	
Bizarro1921 [4]	Europe	-	-	100	2	
Burman1931 [6]	Europe	-	-	1000	206	
Candan2022 [7]	Middle East	-	-	1651	131	
Capecchi1964 [8]	Europe	-	-	964	157	
Cheong2017 [9]	East Asia	996	408	1992	691	
Cilli2005 [11]	Middle East	-	-	464	24	
Coskun2008 [12]	Middle East	984	116	1968	148	
Coskun2009 [30]	Middle East	650	72	1300	99	
Geist1915 [17]	Europe	100	14	200	19	
Harris1947 [21]	North America	3619	178	-	-	
Heimerzheim1925 [22]	Europe	-	-	1800	21	
Holle1938 [24]	Europe	-	-	1000	100	
Huang2013 [25]	East Asia	1625	329	3250	391	
Kalbouneh2017 [27]	Middle East	-	-	1240	259	
Kalbouneh2021 [28]	Middle East	-	-	1000	137	
Kim2021 [32]	East Asia	246	125	492	212	
Kir2011 [68]	Middle East	277	83	554	129	
Kleinberg1917 [34]	North America	-	-	350	12	
Knapik2017 [35]	North America	-	-	261	19	
Lee2020 [40]	East Asia	-	-	532	181	
Leimbach1937 [41]	Europe	-	-	500	18	
Longo2013 [42]	Europe	505	34	-	-	
Lunghetti1909 [43]	Europe	80	13	160	20	
Matsui1964 [45]	East Asia	-	-	213	21	
Nikaido1959 [49]	East Asia	-	-	1315	256	
Ochs2021 [50]	Europe	-	-	3823	1278	
Perdikakis2010 [52]	Europe	148	34	170	34	
Pfitzner1892 [53]	Europe	323	43	-	-	
Pfitzner1896 [54]	Europe	-	-	752	81	
Schönekeß1935 [58]	Europe	-	-	1324	4	
Seehausen2016 [59]	North America	-	-	592	73	
StacyNg2022 [48]	East Asia	439	202	878	357	
Sugano1957 [62]	Europe	-	-	1244	320	
Suzuki1957 [63]	East Asia	-	-	701	181	
Trolle1948 [65]	Europe	250	19	500	32	
Tsuruta1981 [66]	East Asia	-	-	3460	733	
Vasilijevic2010 [69]	Europe	270	31	-	-	
N = number, AN = accessory navicular

Quality assessment

Based on the AQUA tool’s evaluation, the majority of the papers included in this meta-analysis showed a “low” risk of bias in each of the five domains. A few studies (mostly those published in the late 1800s and early 1900s) were classified as having an “unclear” risk of bias, primarily because they followed notably different trends of data reporting. Only a small percentage of studies had been categorized as having a “high” risk of bias in every domain (Table 2).

Table 2 Quality assessment of the studies included in the meta-analysis performed with the AQUA tool [23]

	Risk of bias	
Study	Objective(s) and study characteristics	Study design	Methodology characterization	Descriptive anatomy	Reporting of results	
Alsager2022 [1]	LOW	LOW	LOW	LOW	LOW	
Bagley2022 [2]	LOW	LOW	HIGH	LOW	HIGH	
Bizarro1921 [4]	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	
Burman1931 [6]	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	
Candan2022 [7]	LOW	LOW	LOW	LOW	LOW	
Capecchi1964 [8]	HIGH	HIGH	HIGH	HIGH	HIGH	
Cheong2017 [9]	LOW	LOW	LOW	LOW	LOW	
Cilli2005 [11]	LOW	LOW	LOW	LOW	LOW	
Coskun2008 [12]	LOW	LOW	LOW	LOW	LOW	
Coskun2009 [30]	LOW	LOW	LOW	LOW	LOW	
Geist1915 [17]	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	
Harris1947 [21]	HIGH	LOW	HIGH	HIGH	LOW	
Heimerzheim1925 [22]	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	
Holle1938 [24]	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	
Huang2013 [25]	LOW	LOW	HIGH	LOW	LOW	
Kalbouneh2017 [27]	LOW	LOW	LOW	LOW	LOW	
Kalbouneh2021 [28]	LOW	LOW	LOW	LOW	LOW	
Kim2021 [32]	LOW	LOW	LOW	LOW	LOW	
Kir2011 [68]	LOW	LOW	LOW	LOW	LOW	
Kleinberg1917 [34]	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	
Knapik2017 [35]	LOW	LOW	LOW	LOW	LOW	
Lee2020 [40]	LOW	LOW	LOW	LOW	LOW	
Leimbach1937 [41]	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	
Longo2013 [42]	HIGH	LOW	LOW	LOW	HIGH	
Lunghetti1909 [43]	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	
Matsui1964 [45]	LOW	LOW	LOW	LOW	LOW	
Nikaido1959 [49]	LOW	LOW	LOW	LOW	LOW	
Ochs2021 [50]	LOW	LOW	LOW	LOW	LOW	
Perdikakis2010 [52]	LOW	LOW	LOW	LOW	LOW	
Pfitzner1892 [53]	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	
Pfitzner1896 [54]	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	
Schönekeß1935 [58]	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	
Seehausen2016 [59]	LOW	LOW	HIGH	HIGH	HIGH	
StacyNg2022 [48]	HIGH	HIGH	LOW	HIGH	HIGH	
Sugano1957 [62]	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	UNCLEAR	
Suzuki1957 [63]	HIGH	HIGH	LOW	LOW	LOW	
Trolle1948 [65]	LOW	LOW	LOW	LOW	LOW	
Tsuruta1981 [66]	LOW	LOW	LOW	LOW	LOW	
Vasilijevic2010 [69]	LOW	LOW	LOW	LOW	LOW	

General prevalence

The total number of patients included in the analysis was 11,015. Among them, 1812 individuals were confirmed to have AN. The pooled prevalence estimate (PPE) in this group was 17.5% (95% CI: 11.5–25.7%) (Table 3; Fig. 4a). The analysis also independently included 36,839 feet, of which 6549 AN were identified. The PPE for the feet analysis was 12.6% (95% CI: 10.1–15.5%) (Table 3; Fig. 4b). Twelve studies provided sufficient data of 1526 patients regarding AN laterality. Accessory navicular occurred unilaterally (PPE = 50.0% (95% CI = 35.4-64.7%)) and bilaterally (PPE = 50.0% (95% CI = 35.3-64.6%)) with almost equal frequency (Table 3). Four studies reported the prevalence of AN subtypes in a total of 435 patients with AN, while three papers noted the prevalence of AN subtypes in 487 feet with present AN. In patient analysis, type I AN was the most common (PPE = 41.3% (95% CI = 30.8–52.7%)), while types IIa and IIb were the rarest (PPE = 18.1% (95% CI = 12.4–25.6%) and 15.1% (95% CI = 9.9–22.4%), respectively. The feet analysis provided similar results: type I AN was the most common (PPE = 38.9% (95% CI = 24.7-55.2%)) and types IIa and IIb were the rarest (PPE = 17.6% (95% CI = 13.5-22.8%) and 19.9% (95% CI = 13.9–27.7%), respectively) (Table 4). Small-study effect analysis revealed LFK index values of -0.96 (no asymmetry) and − 3.85 (major asymmetry) for patient-based and feet-based groups (Supplementary material 1), respectively.

Table 3 Meta-analysis presenting general prevalence of accessory navicular, its laterality, and comparison of its prevalence between gender-based groups

Population	Number of patients/feet examined	Prevalence of AN per patients % (95% CI)	Prevalence of AN per feet % (95% CI)	I-squared % (patients/feet)	Cochrane’s Q
p-value (patients/feet)	
General	11,015/36,837	17.5 (11.5–25.7)	12.6 (10.1–15.5)	98.7/98.6	< 0.001/<0.001	
Male	2396/4376	21.1 (12.8–32.6)	12.6 (7.3–20.9)	96.7/97.8	< 0.001/<0.001	
Female	3228/4452	22.0 (13.6–33.6)	15.2 (8.6–25.4)	97.6/98.3	< 0.001/<0.001	
Unilateral AN	1526/-	50.0 (35.4–64.7)	-	96.0/-	< 0.001/-	
Bilateral AN	1526/-	50.0 (35.3–64.6)	-	96.0/-	< 0.001/-	
AN = accessory navicular

Fig. 4a Forest plot presenting general prevalence of accessory navicular (patient analysis)

Fig. 4b Forest plot presenting general prevalence of accessory navicular bone per feet

Table 4 Meta-analysis comparing prevalence of accessory navicular subtypes

ON subtype	Prevalence of AN per patients % (95% CI)	Prevalence of AN per feet % (95% CI)	I-squared % (patients/feet)	Cochrane’s Q
p-value (patients/feet)	
Type I	41.5 (29.7–54.3)	37.8 (27.8–48.9)	68.1/89.7	0.04/<0.001	
Type IIa	17.6 (10.9–27.2)	17.7 (11.7–25.8)	44.2/35.0	0.17/0.21	
Type IIb	14.6 (8.5–24.1)	19.5 (12.6–28.9)	38.8/57.5	0.19/0.09	
Type III	28.2 (18.8–39.9)	27.6 (19.3–37.7)	83.6/32.6	< 0.001/0.22	
AN = accessory navicular

Gender prevalence

Overall, 2396 males and 3228 females were included in the analysis. Accessory navicular was identified in 503 males, resulting in a PPE of 21.1% (95% CI: 12.8–32.6%) in this group. A total of 769 females were reported with the presence of AN. Pooled prevalence estimate in this group was therefore 22.0% (95% CI: 13.6–33.6%). Additionally, a total of 4376 male and 4452 female feet were analyzed. The AN was noted in 738 and 997 feet in men and women, respectively. Pooled prevalence estimate for male feet was 12.6% (95% CI: 7.3–20.9%) and 15.2% (95% CI: 8.6–25.4%) for female feet. The analyses of both patients and feet failed to find a statistically significant difference between gender-based groups (Table 3).

Geographic origin prevalence

A group consisting of 11,015 patients was found eligible for this analysis. Individuals originated from East Asia (3306 people), the Middle East (2414 people), Europe (1576 people), and North America (3719 people). Pooled prevalence estimate for AN was the highest in East Asia and the lowest in Europe and North America for both patients and feet based analyses. Pooled prevalence estimates for AN in the included populations were as follows: 38.4% (95% CI: 25.2–53.7%) in East Asia, 17.7% (95% CI: 10.4–28.6%) in the Middle East, 12.1% (95% CI: 7.5–18.9%) in Europe, and 8.0% (95% CI: 3.4–17.8%) in North America. Analogous analysis was conducted on feet. A total of 36,837 feet from four world regions (12914 from East Asia, 9183 from the Middle East, 13337 from Europe, and 1403 from North America) were investigated. Pooled prevalence estimates for AN in these populations were as follows: 23.6% (95% CI: 16.7-32.3%) in East Asia, 11.8% (95% CI: 7.6-17.8%) in the Middle East, 8.9% (95% CI: 6.2-12.6%) in Europe, and 7.6% (95% CI: 3.9-14.3%) in North America (Table 5).

Table 5 Meta-analysis comparing accessory navicular prevalence between ethnicity-based groups

Region	Number of studies (patients/feet)	Patients’ prevalence % (95% CI)	Feet prevalence % (95% CI)	I-squared % (patients/feet)	Cochrane’s Q
p-value (patients/feet)	
East Asia	4/10	38.4 (25.2–53.7)	23.6 (16.7–32.3)	98.6/98.6	< 0.001/<0.001	
Middle East	4/8	17.7 (10.4–28.6)	11.8 (7.6–17.8)	96.2/97.6	< 0.001/<0.001	
Europe	6/13	12.1 (7.5–18.9)	8.9 (6.2–12.6)	85.8/98.6	< 0.001/<0.001	
North America	2/2	8.0 (3.4–17.8)	7.6 (3.9–14.3)	93.2/85.4	< 0.001/<0.001	

Prevalence based on the type of study

Overall, 10 621 patients were included in the analysis. A total of 9968 patients were examined on the X-rays, while data about the remaining 653 came from the dissection of the cadavers. Accessory navicular was found on 1584 X-rays (PPE = 17.0% (95% CI: 10.3–26.8%), I2 = 99.0%, p = 0.00) and in 75 cadavers (PPE = 11.9% (95% CI: 4.1–19.5%), I2 = 68.6%, p = 0.04). A similar analysis was conducted on 36 064 feet. A total of 34 652 feet were examined on X-rays, and 1412 were assessed during cadaver dissections. Accessory navicular was identified in 6161 feet in the X-ray group (PPE = 12.2% (95% CI: 9.6-15.3%), I2 = 98.7%, p = 0.00), and in 133 feet in the cadaver group (PPE = 9.5% (95% CI: 4.5-19.2%), I2 = 76.5%, p = 0.01).

Discussion

The accessory navicular is an accessory ossicle that can be found on the medial side of the foot in close proximity to the medial and inferior margins of the navicular bone and is often embedded in the distal fibers of the posterior tibial tendon (PTT). There is currently a lack of studies systematically analyzing the anatomy and prevalence of AN. Thus, the purpose of our research was to conduct a meta-analysis in order to standardize the data regarding the prevalence of AN with geographical considerations.

Like other accessory foot ossicles, accessory navicular develops as a result of the secondary ossification center’s inability to fuse with the parent bone, the navicular bone. According to Lawson’s study [38], the ossicle formation process takes place between the ages of 8 and 13. However, in the work conducted on human embryos, Trolle [65] observed that numerous accessory ossicles, including accessory navicular, are already preformed in the embryonic stage. This indicates that the ossification and formation of the foot’s accessory ossicles occur at different times, with some of them possibly existing during the prenatal period. Moreover, some authors [8, 25] state that AN may develop due to mechanical stress or with increasing age. Capecchi et al. [8] were able to identify a dependence of AN prevalence on age, with a significant increase in its prevalence at the age of 40. In the study by Huang et al. [25], a similar relation occurred up to the age of 60, with the highest AN prevalence of 29.7% in the 51–60 age group. Accessory navicular predominantly exists as a single accessory bone, however, reports in the literature point out to its correlation with the presence of the os peroneum [50] as well as the possibility of two AN occurring in a single foot [61].

The presence of AN is predominantly asymptomatic, however, a small percentage of patients (≈ 1%) may experience some disturbing symptoms related to its presence [19, 37]. Clinical implications associated with AN include sensitivity, redness, and swelling around the navicular tuberosity, together with chronic or acute medial foot pain or discomfort [14, 39, 48, 67]. Those symptoms might pose a diagnostic dilemma especially in the emergency setting. Accessory navicular can be mistakenly identified as navicular tuberosity avulsion fracture and vice versa. Similar situation has also been reported for other accessory ossicles of the foot [3, 32]. While most can be easily differentiated on radiographs, sometimes more advanced imaging, such as CT, MRI or Tc-99 m bone scan is required [20].

The reason why some patients with AN experience symptoms while others do not is still a matter of debate [36]. Some individuals with AN have been confirmed to have stress fractures, which are often caused by the posterior tibial tendon [29, 39]. When AN is present, the excessive bony tissue forces the PTT to subluxate over the medial malleolus. As a result, the tendon must pull harder to maintain its function, which generates strong tension over the AN, leading to either a stress fracture or lowering the foot arch as the patient experiences a traumatic division of the PTT [29, 39]. While some authors hypothesize that subluxated tibialis posterior tendon stress fractures cause symptoms, others have linked the lowered foot arch and pes planus to an increase in stress on the accessory navicular during weight-bearing exercises [57, 61].

When symptoms related to AN presence occur, a conservative approach is the first line of treatment. For conservative treatment, apart from the use of NSAIDs and ice, arch support is frequently used to elevate the foot arch and reduce pressure from the shoe on the AN, sometimes improving symptoms [37, 39, 47, 55]. When discomfort and pain last for more than a year or two, surgical excision is worth considering [55, 56]. Although the percentage of patients requiring surgical intervention is very low, the removal of the accessory navicular bone usually results in highly favorable surgical outcomes [44, 61]. Previous studies [26] on the simple excision of accessory navicular, reported substantial pain alleviation visible already in the post-operative period, accompanied by a considerable level (76%) of patients’ satisfaction after the follow-up period. An article by Macnicol and Voutsinas [44] examined the outcomes of simple excision of AN and compared them to outcomes in patients after Kidner procedure. When the major navicular bone was shaped to prevent any residual prominence after the accessory navicular was removed a comparable results in alleviating the symptoms were obtained to patients who underwent Kidner procedures [44]. In total, 86% of all patients reported feeling satisfied [44].

To our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis addressing the problematics of prevalence and anatomy of the accessory navicular. Due to the inconsistency in reporting the AN prevalence in the literature, we decided to undertake this issue by performing the analysis of patient prevalence and foot prevalence separately. The prevalence for patients was 17.5% and 12.6% for feet. Both of those values fit into the range (4–21%) [18, 19, 38, 47, 57] reported previously by numerous authors, yet the difference between them fails to reach statistical significance. The problematics of the difference in patient and foot prevalence, precisely described by Ochs [50], originates from the fact that AN does not always occur bilaterally, and some patients are diagnosed with AN only in one foot. However, considering the substantial variety of the included studies when it comes to reporting data (not every patient had both of his or her feet examined), it was impossible to directly extrapolate the data from patients to feet analysis. Therefore, our analysis of AN bilaterality was based only on 1526 patients and revealed that AN occurred unilaterally and bilaterally with almost equal frequency. This finding does not support the theory that, when present, AN is mostly bilateral [39, 46]. However, neither of our results prove that AN is predominantly unilateral.

The analysis for prevalence of certain AN subtypes (as described by Coughlin [13] in his classification) provided similar results for both patients and feet, with PPEs reaching the highest values for type I AN (41.5% and 37.8% for patients and feet, respectively) and the lowest for type IIb (14.6% for patient analysis) and type IIa (17.7% for foot analysis), with differences being statistically significant for both analyses. This information is worth noticing, as reports in the literature indicate that types IIa and IIb of accessory navicular make up more than 70% of all symptomatic cases, whereas types I and III are primarily asymptomatic [10]. However, the limitation of this observation includes a relatively small sample of patients (435/11,015) and feet (487/36,837) analyzed completely for subtypes prevalence.

Previous studies reported that AN has a higher prevalence among women when compared to the male population [1, 25, 30, 39, 46]. Yet this meta-analysis does not seem to support this hypothesis. Our results showed that AN is present in 21.1% of males and in 22.0% of females. Foot prevalence analysis provided 12.6% and 15.2% PPEs for men and women, respectively. No significant difference between genders was found in the patient nor in the foot prevalence analysis. Surprisingly, only a fraction of authors (8 studies for patients and 6 studies for foot analysis) provided complete data about the gender distribution of AN. However, a total of 5624 patients and 8828 feet underwent the analysis, thus significantly exceeding the samples screened in previous studies covering this matter [1, 25, 30, 39, 46].

Following the study by Stacy NG et al. [48] conducted on the multiethnic population of Singapore, our meta-analysis has also undertaken the problematics of AN prevalence based on geographical origin of the study. Patients’ analysis results revealed that AN prevalence was the highest (38.4%) in East Asia, followed by the Middle East with 17.7% and Europe with 12.1%. The lowest AN prevalence was in North America, where only 8.0% of the patients were diagnosed with AN. Foot prevalence analysis provided similar outcomes: the highest AN prevalence was observed in the East Asian population, while the lowest was in the North Americans. These results compare favorably with the reports from the literature. Stacy NG et al. [48] observed the highest AN prevalence of 50.2% among Chinese individuals and the lowest among Euroasians (20%). The exact mechanism underlying the discrepancy in AN prevalence between populations of different ethnicities remains unknown; however, the genetic factor seems to play a considerable role. Kiter et al. [33] discovered in 2000 that the inheritance of AN is characterized by an autosomal dominant pattern with partial penetrance. Their observation was later confirmed by Dobbs and Walton in 2004 [15]. Eventually, the role of genetics in AN distribution was established by Cheong [9] in 2017 in a Korean family study, which comprised roughly 1000 participants.

We failed to observe a statistically significant relationship between the number of AN and types of studies. Although cadaveric dissection is considered to be a golden standard in anatomy, we were not able to identify the cause of the lowest AN prevalence in cadaver-based studies. The examiner’s proficiency in dissection may affect the accuracy of cadaver dissections. Therefore, AN examined with this method might have been mistakenly omitted, which may have caused lower PPE for dissection when compared to X-ray for both patient and foot prevalence analyses. Moreover, the most common diagnostic, X-ray examination, is only as accurate in determining bone structure as the quality of the images it uses. Because of their great sensitivity and specificity, CT and MRI imaging techniques yield high prevalence of AN as reported previously (50.8% for patient analysis and 43.1% for feet analysis in 1 CT based study [32], 11.1% for feet analysis in 1 MRI based study [2]). However, they were not included in the analysis given the insufficient number of studies performed with these imaging modalities. Therefore, the true prevalence of AN may be underestimated.

The considerable degree of heterogeneity within the included research placed limitations on our investigation. We employed several subgroup analyses to investigate the source of the heterogeneity, but it remained throughout the course of the study. Moreover, a small-study effect analysis revealed major asymmetry in the Doi plot for feet-based prevalence analysis, with an LFK index value of -3.85 strongly suggesting the presence of a small-study effect. This result indicates possible negative publication bias, i.e., studies reporting lower AN prevalence rates may be more likely to be published than those reporting higher prevalence rates in feet-based analysis. This can lead to an underestimation of the actual AN foot prevalence in our meta-analytic findings. Fortunately, no similar effect was found in the patient-based analysis. A further drawback is that the study protocol was not registered before to this systematic review and meta-analysis. The global poll found that while it is advised, this strategy is not frequently employed [64]. The findings’ generalizability may be limited by the lack of research conducted in Australia, Oceania, and South America.

Conclusions

According to this study, AN is a very common accessory bone with a prevalence of 17.5% overall and no gender differences. The East Asian and Middle East populations have the highest prevalence of AN. In clinical practice, doctors—especially orthopedic surgeons—should be aware that the accessory navicular bone’s prevalence and anatomy. Such knowledge facilitates a more accurate diagnosis when a patient complains of discomfort or conflict in the medial aspect of the foot and ankle.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Acknowledgements

Dominik Taterra is supported by the Foundation for Polish Science (FNP) grant for young scientists. We would like to express our sincere gratitude towards Katarzyna Wojciechowska who supported us with the graphic design of figures included in our study.

Author contributions

Kacper Stolarz – conception and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting and revising the article; Aleksander Osiowski - conception and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting and revising the article; Maciej Preinl - acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting and revising the article; Maksymilian Osiowski - graphic design, drafting and revising the article; Dominik Taterra MD - drafting and revising the article, supervising the study; Barbara Jasiewicz MD, PhD - drafting and revising the article, supervising the study.

Funding

No funding was received for conducting this study.

Data availability

The original publications provided the data used in the manuscript. Upon request, the corresponding author can supply the entire set of data used in this analysis.

Declarations

Ethical approval

Not applicable for this type of study (systematic review with meta-analysis).

Consent to participate

Not applicable for this type of study (systematic review with meta-analysis).

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

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

1. Alsager GA Alzahrani K Alshayhan F Alotaibi RA Murrad K Arafah O Prevalence and classification of accessory navicular bone: a medical record review Ann Saudi Med 2022 42 327 333 10.5144/0256-4947.2022.327 36252147
Alsager GA, Alzahrani K, Alshayhan F, Alotaibi RA, Murrad K, Arafah O (2022) Prevalence and classification of accessory navicular bone: a medical record review. Ann Saudi Med 42:327–333. 10.5144/0256-4947.2022.32736252147 10.5144/0256-4947.2022.327
2. Bagley C, McIlhone S, Singla N, Berkeley R, O’donnell P, Tennant S, Saifuddin A (2022) MRI for paediatric flatfoot: is it necessary? Br J Radiol 95. 10.1259/BJR.20210784
3. Bayramoğlu A Demiryürek D Fırat A Öznur A Özsoy MH Differential diagnosis in an professional basketball player with foot pain: is it an avulsion fracture or an os supranaviculare? Jt Dis Relat Surg 2009 20 059 061
Bayramoğlu A, Demiryürek D, Fırat A, Öznur A, Özsoy MH (2009) Differential diagnosis in an professional basketball player with foot pain: is it an avulsion fracture or an os supranaviculare? Jt Dis Relat Surg 20:059–061
4. Bizarro AH London FRCS On sesamoid and Supernumerary bones of the limbs J Anat 1921 55 256 17103926
Bizarro AH, London FRCS (1921) On sesamoid and Supernumerary bones of the limbs. J Anat 55:25617103926
5. Borenstein M, Hedges L, Higgins J, Rothstein H (2022) Comprehensive Meta-Analysis
6. Burman M Lapidus P The Functional disturbances caused by the inconstant bones and sesamoids of the foot Arch Surg 1931 22 936 10.1001/ARCHSURG.1931.01160060064004
Burman M, Lapidus P, The Functional disturbances caused by the inconstant bones and sesamoids of the foot (1931) Arch Surg 22:936. 10.1001/ARCHSURG.1931.0116006006400410.1001/ARCHSURG.1931.01160060064004
7. Candan B, Torun E, Dikici R (2022) The prevalence of Accessory Ossicles, Sesamoid bones, and Biphalangism of the Foot and Ankle: a Radiographic Study. Foot Ankle Orthop 7. 10.1177/24730114211068792
8. Capecchi V, Cicala G, Crisafulli A (1964) Le Ossa soprannumerarie del piede (parte I). Acta orthopaedica Italica 10
9. Cheong IY Kang HJ Ko H Sung J Song YM Hwang JH Genetic influence on accessory navicular bone in the foot: a Korean twin and family study Twin Res Hum Genet 2017 20 236 241 10.1017/THG.2017.21 28390446
Cheong IY, Kang HJ, Ko H, Sung J, Song YM, Hwang JH (2017) Genetic influence on accessory navicular bone in the foot: a Korean twin and family study. Twin Res Hum Genet 20:236–241. 10.1017/THG.2017.2128390446 10.1017/THG.2017.21
10. Chiu NT Jou IM Lee BF Yao WJ Tu DG Wu PS Symptomatic and asymptomatic accessory navicular bones: findings of Tc-99m MDP bone scintigraphy Clin Radiol 2000 55 353 355 10.1053/CRAD.2000.0436 10816400
Chiu NT, Jou IM, Lee BF, Yao WJ, Tu DG, Wu PS (2000) Symptomatic and asymptomatic accessory navicular bones: findings of Tc-99m MDP bone scintigraphy. Clin Radiol 55:353–355. 10.1053/CRAD.2000.043610816400 10.1053/CRAD.2000.0436
11. Cilli F, Akcaoglu M (2005) The incidence of accessory bones of the foot and their clinical significance Ayakta. aksesuar kemiklerin s›kl›¤› ve klinik önemi
12. Coskun N Yuksel M Cevener M Arican RY Ozdemir H Bircan O Sindel T Ilgi S Sindel M Incidence of accessory ossicles and sesamoid bones in the feet: a radiographic study of the Turkish subjects Surg Radiol Anat 2009 31 19 24 10.1007/S00276-008-0383-9 18633564
Coskun N, Yuksel M, Cevener M, Arican RY, Ozdemir H, Bircan O, Sindel T, Ilgi S, Sindel M (2009) Incidence of accessory ossicles and sesamoid bones in the feet: a radiographic study of the Turkish subjects. Surg Radiol Anat 31:19–24. 10.1007/S00276-008-0383-918633564 10.1007/S00276-008-0383-9
13. Coughlin M Coughlin M Saltzman C Anderson R Sesamoid and accessory bones of the foot Mann’s surgery of the Foot and Ankle 2013 9 Amsterdam Elsevier 544 554
Coughlin M (2013) Sesamoid and accessory bones of the foot. In: Coughlin M, Saltzman C, Anderson R (eds) Mann’s surgery of the Foot and Ankle, 9th edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 544–554
14. Crogan DP Gasser SI Ogden JA The painful accessory navicular: a clinical and histopathological study Foot Ankle 1989 10 164 169 10.1177/107110078901000310 2613130
Crogan DP, Gasser SI, Ogden JA (1989) The painful accessory navicular: a clinical and histopathological study. Foot Ankle 10:164–169. 10.1177/1071100789010003102613130 10.1177/107110078901000310
15. Dobbs MB Walton T Autosomal Dominant transmission of Accessory Navicular Iowa Orthop J 2004 24 84 15296212
Dobbs MB, Walton T (2004) Autosomal Dominant transmission of Accessory Navicular. Iowa Orthop J 24:8415296212
16. Furuya-Kanamori L Barendregt JJ Doi SAR A new improved graphical and quantitative method for detecting bias in meta-analysis Int J Evid Based Healthc 2018 16 195 203 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000141 29621038
Furuya-Kanamori L, Barendregt JJ, Doi SAR (2018) A new improved graphical and quantitative method for detecting bias in meta-analysis. Int J Evid Based Healthc 16:195–203. 10.1097/XEB.000000000000014129621038 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000141
17. Geist E (1914) Supernumerary bones of the foot—a. rÖntgen study of the feet of one hundred normal individuals
18. Golano P Fariñas O Sáenz I The anatomy of the navicular and periarticular structures Foot Ankle Clin 2004 9 1 23 10.1016/S1083-7515(03)00155-4 15062212
Golano P, Fariñas O, Sáenz I (2004) The anatomy of the navicular and periarticular structures. Foot Ankle Clin 9:1–23. 10.1016/S1083-7515(03)00155-415062212 10.1016/S1083-7515(03)00155-4
19. Günal I Yörüko˘glu K Osteonecrosis of the accessory navicular bone Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2001 121 546 547 10.1007/S004020100294 11599761
Günal I, Yörüko˘glu K (2001) Osteonecrosis of the accessory navicular bone. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 121:546–547. 10.1007/S00402010029411599761 10.1007/S004020100294
20. Guo S Yan YY Lee SSY Tan TJ Accessory ossicles of the foot-an imaging conundrum Emerg Radiol 2019 26 465 478 10.1007/S10140-019-01688-X 30963314
Guo S, Yan YY, Lee SSY, Tan TJ (2019) Accessory ossicles of the foot-an imaging conundrum. Emerg Radiol 26:465–478. 10.1007/S10140-019-01688-X30963314 10.1007/S10140-019-01688-X
21. Harris RI Beath T Army foot survey: an investigation of foot ailments in Canadian soldiers 1947 Ottawa National Research Council of Canada
Harris RI, Beath T (1947) Army foot survey: an investigation of foot ailments in Canadian soldiers. National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa
22. Heimerzheim A Über Einige Akzessorische Fußwurzelknochen nebst ihrer chirurgischen Bedeutung Langenbecks Arch Surg 1925 190 96 112
Heimerzheim A (1925) Über Einige Akzessorische Fußwurzelknochen nebst ihrer chirurgischen Bedeutung. Langenbecks Arch Surg 190:96–112
23. Henry BM Marcinów A Pękala P Taterra D Loukas M Tubbs RS Walocha JA Tomaszewski KA Polish translation of the Anatomical Quality Assurance (AQUA) Checklist: new guidelines for reporting in original anatomical studies Folia Med Cracov 2017 57 2 105 116 29121042
Henry BM, Marcinów A, Pękala P, Taterra D, Loukas M, Tubbs RS, Walocha JA, Tomaszewski KA (2017) Polish translation of the Anatomical Quality Assurance (AQUA) Checklist: new guidelines for reporting in original anatomical studies. Folia Med Cracov 57(2):105–116 PMID: 2912104229121042
24. Holle F (1938) Ueber die inkonstanten Elemente am menschlichen Fusskelett. Münster 22–48
25. Huang J Zhang Y Ma X Wang X Zhang C Chen L Accessory navicular bone incidence in Chinese patients: a retrospective analysis of X-rays following trauma or progressive pain onset Surg Radiol Anat 2014 36 167 172 10.1007/S00276-013-1158-5 23897536
Huang J, Zhang Y, Ma X, Wang X, Zhang C, Chen L (2014) Accessory navicular bone incidence in Chinese patients: a retrospective analysis of X-rays following trauma or progressive pain onset. Surg Radiol Anat 36:167–172. 10.1007/S00276-013-1158-523897536 10.1007/S00276-013-1158-5
26. Jasiewicz B Potaczek T Kacki W Tesiorowski M Lipik E Results of simple excision technique in the surgical treatment of symptomatic accessory navicular bones Foot Ankle Surg 2008 14 57 61 10.1016/J.FAS.2007.12.002 19083616
Jasiewicz B, Potaczek T, Kacki W, Tesiorowski M, Lipik E (2008) Results of simple excision technique in the surgical treatment of symptomatic accessory navicular bones. Foot Ankle Surg 14:57–61. 10.1016/J.FAS.2007.12.00219083616 10.1016/J.FAS.2007.12.002
27. Kalbouneh H Alajoulin O Alsalem M Humoud N Shawaqfeh J Alkhoujah M Abu-Hassan H Mahafza W Badran D Incidence and anatomical variations of accessory navicular bone in patients with foot pain: a retrospective radiographic analysis Clin Anat 2017 30 436 444 10.1002/CA.22876 28295608
Kalbouneh H, Alajoulin O, Alsalem M, Humoud N, Shawaqfeh J, Alkhoujah M, Abu-Hassan H, Mahafza W, Badran D (2017) Incidence and anatomical variations of accessory navicular bone in patients with foot pain: a retrospective radiographic analysis. Clin Anat 30:436–444. 10.1002/CA.2287628295608 10.1002/CA.22876
28. Kalbouneh H, Alajoulin O, Shawaqfeh J, Mustafa A, Jaber S, Zaben S, Zapen J, Alsalem M (2021) Accessory Ossicles in the region of the Foot and Ankle: an epidemiologic survey in a Jordanian Population. Med (Kaunas) 57. 10.3390/MEDICINA57111178
29. Kamel SI Belair JA Hegazi TM Halpern EJ Desai V Morrison WB Zoga AC Painful type II os naviculare: introduction of a standardized, reproducible classification system Skeletal Radiol 2020 49 1977 1985 10.1007/S00256-020-03503-Y 32556471
Kamel SI, Belair JA, Hegazi TM, Halpern EJ, Desai V, Morrison WB, Zoga AC (2020) Painful type II os naviculare: introduction of a standardized, reproducible classification system. Skeletal Radiol 49:1977–1985. 10.1007/S00256-020-03503-Y32556471 10.1007/S00256-020-03503-Y
30. Keles Coskun N Arican RY Utuk A Ozcanli H Sindel T The incidence of accessory navicular bone types in Turkish subjects Surg Radiol Anat 2009 31 675 679 10.1007/S00276-009-0502-2 19367354
Keles Coskun N, Arican RY, Utuk A, Ozcanli H, Sindel T (2009) The incidence of accessory navicular bone types in Turkish subjects. Surg Radiol Anat 31:675–679. 10.1007/S00276-009-0502-219367354 10.1007/S00276-009-0502-2
31. Kidner FC The prehallux (accessory scaphoid) in its relation to flat-foot 1929 American Volume Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery
Kidner FC (1929) The prehallux (accessory scaphoid) in its relation to flat-foot. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume
32. Kim JY Kim JY Park S Bin, Kim C Lee WW A retrospective multicenter study of quantitative bone SPECT/CT to predict the surgical removal of the accessory navicular bone Nucl Med Commun 2021 42 998 1004 10.1097/MNM.0000000000001433 33867482
Kim JY, Kim JY, Park S, Bin, Kim C, Lee WW (2021) A retrospective multicenter study of quantitative bone SPECT/CT to predict the surgical removal of the accessory navicular bone. Nucl Med Commun 42:998–1004. 10.1097/MNM.000000000000143333867482 10.1097/MNM.0000000000001433
33. Kiter E Erduran M Günal I Inheritance of the accessory navicular bone Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2000 120 582 583 10.1007/S004020000143 11110140
Kiter E, Erduran M, Günal I (2000) Inheritance of the accessory navicular bone. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 120:582–583. 10.1007/S00402000014311110140 10.1007/S004020000143
34. KLEINBERG S Supernumerary bones of the foot: an x-ray study Ann Surg 1917 65 499 509 10.1097/00000658-191704000-00015 17863700
KLEINBERG S (1917) Supernumerary bones of the foot: an x-ray study. Ann Surg 65:499–509. 10.1097/00000658-191704000-0001517863700 10.1097/00000658-191704000-00015
35. Knapik DM Guraya SS Conry KT Cooperman DR Liu RW Longitudinal radiographic behavior of accessory navicular in pediatric patients J Child Orthop 2016 10 685 689 10.1007/S11832-016-0777-X 27807730
Knapik DM, Guraya SS, Conry KT, Cooperman DR, Liu RW (2016) Longitudinal radiographic behavior of accessory navicular in pediatric patients. J Child Orthop 10:685–689. 10.1007/S11832-016-0777-X27807730 10.1007/S11832-016-0777-X
36. Knapik, Archibald HD Xie KK Liu RW A retrospective study on factors predictive of operative intervention in symptomatic accessory navicular J Child Orthop 2019 13 107 113 10.1302/1863-2548.13.180168 30838083
Knapik, Archibald HD, Xie KK, Liu RW (2019) A retrospective study on factors predictive of operative intervention in symptomatic accessory navicular. J Child Orthop 13:107–113. 10.1302/1863-2548.13.18016830838083 10.1302/1863-2548.13.180168
37. Kopp FJ Marcus RE Clinical outcome of surgical treatment of the symptomatic accessory navicular Foot Ankle Int 2004 25 27 30 10.1177/107110070402500106 14768961
Kopp FJ, Marcus RE (2004) Clinical outcome of surgical treatment of the symptomatic accessory navicular. Foot Ankle Int 25:27–30. 10.1177/10711007040250010614768961 10.1177/107110070402500106
38. Lawson JP International Skeletal Society Lecture in honor of Howard D. Dorfman. Clinically significant radiologic anatomic variants of the skeleton AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994 163 249 255 10.2214/AJR.163.2.8037009 8037009
Lawson JP (1994) International Skeletal Society Lecture in honor of Howard D. Dorfman. Clinically significant radiologic anatomic variants of the skeleton. AJR Am J Roentgenol 163:249–255. 10.2214/AJR.163.2.80370098037009 10.2214/AJR.163.2.8037009
39. Lawson JP Ogden JA Sella E Barwick KW The painful accessory navicular Skeletal Radiol 1984 12 250 262 10.1007/BF00349506 6239377
Lawson JP, Ogden JA, Sella E, Barwick KW (1984) The painful accessory navicular. Skeletal Radiol 12:250–262. 10.1007/BF003495066239377 10.1007/BF00349506
40. Lee JH Kyung MG Cho YJ Go TW Lee DY Prevalence of Accessory bones and tarsal coalitions based on Radiographic findings in a Healthy, Asymptomatic Population Clin Orthop Surg 2020 12 245 251 10.4055/CIOS19123 32489548
Lee JH, Kyung MG, Cho YJ, Go TW, Lee DY (2020) Prevalence of Accessory bones and tarsal coalitions based on Radiographic findings in a Healthy, Asymptomatic Population. Clin Orthop Surg 12:245–251. 10.4055/CIOS1912332489548 10.4055/CIOS19123
41. Leimbach G Beiträge Zur Kenntnis Der Inkonstanten Skeletelemente Des Tarsus. (Akzessorische Fußwurzelknochen.) - Untersuchungen an 500 Röntgenbildern Der Chir. Universitätsklinik zu Jean Arch Orthop Unfallchir 1937 38 431 448 10.1007/BF02580585/METRICS
Leimbach G (1937) Beiträge Zur Kenntnis Der Inkonstanten Skeletelemente Des Tarsus. (Akzessorische Fußwurzelknochen.) - Untersuchungen an 500 Röntgenbildern Der Chir. Universitätsklinik zu Jean. Arch Orthop Unfallchir 38:431–448. 10.1007/BF02580585/METRICS10.1007/BF02580585/METRICS
42. Longo UG Marinozzi A Petrillo S Spiezia F Maffulli N Denaro V Prevalence of accessory ossicles and sesamoid bones in hallux valgus J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 2013 103 208 212 10.7547/1030208 23697726
Longo UG, Marinozzi A, Petrillo S, Spiezia F, Maffulli N, Denaro V (2013) Prevalence of accessory ossicles and sesamoid bones in hallux valgus. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 103:208–212. 10.7547/103020823697726 10.7547/1030208
43. Lunghetti B Contributo alla studio della morfologia e dello sviluppo dei sesamoidi intratendinei Int Monatsschrift für Anatomie und Physiologie 1909 26 47 83
Lunghetti B (1909) Contributo alla studio della morfologia e dello sviluppo dei sesamoidi intratendinei. Int Monatsschrift für Anatomie und Physiologie 26:47–83
44. Macnicol MF Voutsinas S Surgical treatment of the symptomatic accessory navicular J Bone Joint Surg Br 1984 66 218 226 10.1302/0301-620X.66B2.6707058 6707058
Macnicol MF, Voutsinas S (1984) Surgical treatment of the symptomatic accessory navicular. J Bone Joint Surg Br 66:218–226. 10.1302/0301-620X.66B2.67070586707058 10.1302/0301-620X.66B2.6707058
45. Matsui E On the sesamoid bones around the ankle joint of the patients at our hospital Cent Japan J Orthop Trauma Surg 1964 7 539 541
Matsui E (1964) On the sesamoid bones around the ankle joint of the patients at our hospital. Cent Japan J Orthop Trauma Surg 7:539–541
46. Mygind HB The accessory tarsal scaphoid; clinical features and treatment Acta Orthop Scand 1953 23 142 151 10.3109/17453675308991207 13138111
Mygind HB (1953) The accessory tarsal scaphoid; clinical features and treatment. Acta Orthop Scand 23:142–151. 10.3109/1745367530899120713138111 10.3109/17453675308991207
47. Nakayama S Sugimoto K Takakura Y Tanaka Y Kasanami R Percutaneous drilling of symptomatic accessory navicular in young athletes Am J Sports Med 2005 33 531 535 10.1177/0363546504270564 15722276
Nakayama S, Sugimoto K, Takakura Y, Tanaka Y, Kasanami R (2005) Percutaneous drilling of symptomatic accessory navicular in young athletes. Am J Sports Med 33:531–535. 10.1177/036354650427056415722276 10.1177/0363546504270564
48. Ng WLS Tan TJ Kam JW Mehta K The incidence and anatomic variation of Os Naviculare in a multiethinic Asian Population J Foot Ankle Surg 2022 61 456 458 10.1053/j.jfas.2021.05.013 34750072
Ng WLS, Tan TJ, Kam JW, Mehta K (2022) The incidence and anatomic variation of Os Naviculare in a multiethinic Asian Population. J Foot Ankle Surg 61:456–458. 10.1053/j.jfas.2021.05.01334750072 10.1053/j.jfas.2021.05.013
49. Nikaido K 足過剰ー骨に関ナる研究 Hokkaidō J Orthop Trauma Surg 1959 5 19 32
Nikaido K (1959) 足過剰ー骨に関ナる研究. Hokkaidō J Orthop Trauma Surg 5:19–32
50. Ochs BM (2021) Prävalenzbestimmung Von Akzessorischen Skelettelementen Im Bereich Der Fußwurzel Und Des Oberen. Sprunggelenks beim Erwachsenen
51. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, McGuinness LA, Stewart LA, Thomas J, Tricco AC, Welch VA, Whiting P, Moher D (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372. 10.1136/BMJ.N71
52. Perdikakis E Grigoraki E Karantanas A Os naviculare: the multi-ossicle configuration of a normal variant Skeletal Radiol 2011 40 85 88 10.1007/S00256-010-0944-Y 20454960
Perdikakis E, Grigoraki E, Karantanas A (2011) Os naviculare: the multi-ossicle configuration of a normal variant. Skeletal Radiol 40:85–88. 10.1007/S00256-010-0944-Y20454960 10.1007/S00256-010-0944-Y
53. Pfitzner W (1892) Die Sesambeine des Menschen. In: Schwalbe G (ed) Morphologische Arbeiten, Erster Band. pp 517–762
54. Pfitzner W (1896) Beiträge zur Kenntniss des menschlichen Extremitätenskelets: VII. Die Variationen im Aufbau des Fussskelets. In: Schwalbe G (ed) Morphologische Arbeiten, Sechster Band. pp 245–527
55. Prichasuk S Sinphurmsukskul O Kidner procedure for symptomatic accessory navicular and its relation to pes planus Foot Ankle Int 1995 16 500 503 10.1177/107110079501600807 8520663
Prichasuk S, Sinphurmsukskul O (1995) Kidner procedure for symptomatic accessory navicular and its relation to pes planus. Foot Ankle Int 16:500–503. 10.1177/1071100795016008078520663 10.1177/107110079501600807
56. Ray S Goldberg VM Surgical treatment of the accessory navicular Clin Orthop Relat Res 1983 177 61 66 10.1097/00003086-198307000-00010
Ray S, Goldberg VM (1983) Surgical treatment of the accessory navicular. Clin Orthop Relat Res 177:61–66. 10.1097/00003086-198307000-0001010.1097/00003086-198307000-00010
57. Romanowski CAJ Barrington NA The accessory navicular–an important cause of medial foot pain Clin Radiol 1992 46 261 264 10.1016/S0009-9260(05)80167-9 1424449
Romanowski CAJ, Barrington NA (1992) The accessory navicular–an important cause of medial foot pain. Clin Radiol 46:261–264. 10.1016/S0009-9260(05)80167-91424449 10.1016/S0009-9260(05)80167-9
58. Schönekeß P (1935) Anomalien der Fusswurzelknochen. Münster 1–20
59. Seehausen DA Harris LR Kay RM Pace JL Accessory Navicular is Associated with wider and more prominent navicular bone in Pediatric patients by Radiographic Measurement J Pediatr Orthop 2016 36 521 525 10.1097/BPO.0000000000000489 25887831
Seehausen DA, Harris LR, Kay RM, Pace JL (2016) Accessory Navicular is Associated with wider and more prominent navicular bone in Pediatric patients by Radiographic Measurement. J Pediatr Orthop 36:521–525. 10.1097/BPO.000000000000048925887831 10.1097/BPO.0000000000000489
60. Sella EJ Lawson JP Biomechanics of the accessory navicular synchondrosis Foot Ankle 1987 8 156 163 10.1177/107110078700800310 3440558
Sella EJ, Lawson JP (1987) Biomechanics of the accessory navicular synchondrosis. Foot Ankle 8:156–163. 10.1177/1071100787008003103440558 10.1177/107110078700800310
61. Sharkey B, Yatsonsky D, Huffman N, Dong T, Lewis A (2023) Symptomatic patient with two separate accessory Navicular bones. Cureus 15. 10.7759/CUREUS.47881
62. Sugano T L’os Tibiale Externum (L’os t.e.) et les douleurs du pied Arch jap Chir 1955 24 410 414
Sugano T (1955) L’os Tibiale Externum (L’os t.e.) et les douleurs du pied. Arch jap Chir 24:410–414
63. Suzuki K 三角骨について Orthop Surg 1957 8 84 89
Suzuki K (1957) 三角骨について. Orthop Surg 8:84–89
64. Tawfik GM, Giang HTN, Ghozy S, Altibi AM, Kandil H, Le HH, Eid PS, Radwan I, Makram OM, Hien TTT, Sherif M, Hossain AS, Thang TLL, Puljak L, Salem H, Numair T, Moji K, Huy NT (2020) Protocol registration issues of systematic review and meta-analysis studies: a survey of global researchers. BMC Med Res Methodol 20. 10.1186/S12874-020-01094-9
65. Trolle D (1948) Accessory bones of the human foot. 1–115
66. Tsuruta T Shiokawa Y Kato A Matsimoto T Yamazoe Y Oike T Tsutomu S Saito M Radiological study of the accessory skeletal elements in the foot and ankle Nihon Seikeigeka Gakkai Zasshi 1981 55 357 370 7276670
Tsuruta T, Shiokawa Y, Kato A, Matsimoto T, Yamazoe Y, Oike T, Tsutomu S, Saito M (1981) Radiological study of the accessory skeletal elements in the foot and ankle. Nihon Seikeigeka Gakkai Zasshi 55:357–3707276670
67. Ugolini PA Raikin SM The accessory navicular Foot Ankle Clin 2004 9 165 180 10.1016/S1083-7515(03)00176-1 15062220
Ugolini PA, Raikin SM (2004) The accessory navicular. Foot Ankle Clin 9:165–180. 10.1016/S1083-7515(03)00176-115062220 10.1016/S1083-7515(03)00176-1
68. Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi U Kır H Kandemir S Olgaç M Yıldırım O Şen G Ayaktaki aksesuar kemiklerin görülme sıklığı ve dağılımı Med Bull Şişli Etfal Hosp 2011 2 45
Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi U, Kır H, Kandemir S, Olgaç M, Yıldırım O, Şen G (2011) Ayaktaki aksesuar kemiklerin görülme sıklığı ve dağılımı. Med Bull Şişli Etfal Hosp 2:45
69. Vasiljević V Marković L Vasić-Vilić J Mihajlović D Nikolić B Milošević S [Accessory bones of the feet–radiological analysis of frequency] Vojnosanit Pregl 2010 67 469 472 10.2298/VSP1006469V 20629425
Vasiljević V, Marković L, Vasić-Vilić J, Mihajlović D, Nikolić B, Milošević S (2010) [Accessory bones of the feet–radiological analysis of frequency]. Vojnosanit Pregl 67:469–472. 10.2298/VSP1006469V20629425 10.2298/VSP1006469V
70. Zadek I, JBJS AG- (1948), undefined (1948) The accessory tarsal scaphoid. journals.lww.comI Zadek, AM GoldJBJS, 1948•journals.lww.com
