Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Insights into Imaging
Published in: Insights into Imaging 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Computed Tomography | Educational Review

Anatomical variation in the ankle and foot: from incidental finding to inductor of pathology. Part II: midfooot and forefoot

Authors: Maria Pilar Aparisi Gómez, Francisco Aparisi, Alessandra Bartoloni, Maria Alejandra Ferrando Fons, Giuseppe Battista, Giuseppe Guglielmi, Alberto Bazzocchi

Published in: Insights into Imaging | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Accessory anatomical structures in the ankle and foot usually represent incidental imaging findings; however, they may also eventually represent a source of pathology, such as painful syndromes, degenerative changes, be the subject of overuse and trauma, or appear as masses and cause compression syndromes or impingement. This review aims to describe and illustrate the imaging findings related to the presence of accessory ossicles and muscles in the midfoot and forefoot through different techniques, with special attention on those variants that associate factors of clinical relevance or that would trigger challenges in the differential diagnosis.
Literature
1.
Sarrafian SK, Kelikian A (2011) Osteology. In: Kelikian A, Sarrafian SK (Eds) Sarrafian’s anatomy of the foot and ankle: descriptive, topographic, functional. Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia
2.
Keats TE (1992) The foot. In: Keats TE (ed) Atlas of normal Roetgen variants that may simulate disease. Mosby-Year book, St Louis
3.
Miller TT (2002) Painful accessory bones of the foot. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 6:153–161CrossRef
4.
Kalbouneh H, Alajoulin O, Alsalem M et al (2017) Incidence and anatomical variations of accessory navicular bone in patients with foot pain: a retrospective radiographic analysis. Clin Anat 30:436–444CrossRef
5.
Perdikakis E, Grigoraki E, Karantanas A (2011) Os naviculare: the multi-ossicle configuration of a normal variant. Skeletal Radiol 40:85–88CrossRef
6.
Nwawka OK, Hayashi D, Diaz LE et al (2013) Sesamoids and accessory ossicles of the foot: anatomical variability and related pathology. Insights Imaging 4:581–593CrossRef
7.
Mellado JM, Ramos A, Salvadó E, Camins A, Danús M, Saurí A (2003) Accessory ossicles and sesamoid bones of the ankle and foot: imaging findings, clinical significance and differential diagnosis. Eur Radiol 13:L164–L177CrossRef
8.
Bareither DJ, Muehleman CM, Feldman NJ (1995) Os tibiale externum or sesamoid in the tendon of tibialis posterior. J Foot Ankle Surg 34:429–434 discussion 509CrossRef
9.
Bencardino JT, Rosenberg ZS (2001) MR imaging and CT in the assessment of osseous abnormalities of the ankle and foot. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 9:567–578PubMed
10.
Miller TT, Staron RB, Feldman F, Parisien M, Glucksman WJ, Gandolfo LH (1995) The symptomatic accessory tarsal navicular bone: assessment with MR imaging. Radiology 195:849–853CrossRef
11.
Summers A (2015) Accessory ossicles and sesamoid bones: recognition and treatment. Emerg Nurse 22:27–32CrossRef
12.
Chuang YW, Tsai WS, Chen KH, Hsu HC (2012) Clinical use of high-resolution ultrasonography for the diagnosis of type II accessory navicular bone. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 91:177–181CrossRef
13.
Mosel LD, Kat E, Voyvodic F (2004) Imaging of the symptomatic type II accessory navicular bone. Australas Radiol 48:267–271CrossRef
14.
Takahashi M, Sakai T, Sairyo K, Takao S, Mima S, Yasui N (2014) Magnetic resonance imaging in adolescent symptomatic navicular tuberosity. J Med Invest 61:22–27CrossRef
15.
Karasick D (1994) Fractures and dislocations of the foot. Semin Roentgenol 29:152–175CrossRef
16.
Tuthill HL, Finkelstein ER, Sanchez AM, Clifford PD, Subhawong TK, Jose J (2014) Imaging of tarsal navicular disorders: a pictorial review. Foot Ankle Spec 7:211–225CrossRef
17.
Sobel M, Pavlov H, Geppert MJ, Thompson FM, DiCarlo EF, Davis WH (1994) Painful os peroneum syndrome: a spectrum of conditions responsible for plantar lateral foot pain. Foot Ankle Int 15:112–124CrossRef
18.
Wang XT, Rosenberg ZS, Mechlin MB, Schweitzer ME (2005) Normal variants and diseases of the peroneal tendons and superior peroneal retinaculum: MR imaging features. Radiographics 25:587–602 Erratum in: Radiographics 2006 26:640CrossRef
19.
Bianchi S, Bortolotto C, Draghi F (2017) Os peroneum imaging: normal appearance and pathological findings. Insights Imaging 8:59–68CrossRef
20.
Bencardino JT, Rosenberg ZS, Serrano LF (2001) MR imaging features of diseases of the peroneal tendons. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 9:493–505PubMed
21.
Bashir WA, Lewis S, Cullen N, Connell DA (2009) Os peroneum friction syndrome complicated by sesamoid fatigue fracture: a new radiological diagnosis? Case report and literature review. Skeletal Radiol 38:181–186CrossRef
22.
Roster B, Michelier P, Giza E (2015) Peroneal tendon disorders. Clin Sports Med 34:625–641CrossRef
23.
Strauss JE, Forsberg JA, Lippert FG 3rd (2007) Chronic lateral ankle instability and associated conditions: a rationale for treatment. Foot Ankle Int 28:1041–1044CrossRef
24.
Shortt CP (2010) Magnetic resonance imaging of the midfoot and forefoot: normal variants and pitfalls. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 18:707–715CrossRef
25.
26.
Kauffmann G, Stacy GS (2014) Os cuboideum secundarium: a rare accessory ossicle with the potential to mimic a mass on magnetic resonance imaging. Skeletal Radiol 43:95–98CrossRef
27.
Gaulke R, Schmitz HG (2003) Free os cuboideum secundarium: a case report. J Foot Ankle Surg 42:230–234CrossRef
28.
Logan PM, Connell DG, Janzen DL (1996) Painful os cuboideum secundarium. Cross-sectional imaging findings. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 86:123–125CrossRef
29.
Prescher A (1997) Some remarks on, and a new case of the rare os intercuneiforme (Dwight). Ann Anat 179:317–320CrossRef
30.
Potter HG, Pavlov H, Abrahams TG (1992) The hallux sesamoids revisited. Skeletal Radiol 21:437–444
31.
Jeng CL, Maurer A, Mizel MS (1998) Congenital absence of the hallux fibular sesamoid: a case report and review of the literature. Foot Ankle Int 19:329–331CrossRef
32.
Karasick D, Schweitzer ME (1998) Disorders of the hallux sesamoid complex: MR features. Skeletal Radiol 27:411–418CrossRef
33.
Coskun N, Yuksel M, Cevener M et al (2009) Incidence of accessory ossicles and sesamoid bones in the feet: a radiographic study of the Turkish subjects. Surg Radiol Anat 31:19–24CrossRef
34.
Davies MB, Dalal S (2005) Gross anatomy of the interphalangeal joint of the great toe: implications for excision of plantar capsular accessory ossicles. Clin Anat 18:239–244CrossRef
35.
Davies MB, Abdlslam K, Gibson RJ (2003) Interphalangeal sesamoid bones of the great toe: an anatomic variant demanding careful scrutiny of radiographs. Clin Anat 16:520–521CrossRef
36.
Leung HB, Wong WC (2002) Irreducible dislocation of the hallucal interphalangeal joint. Hong Kong Med J 8:295–299PubMed
37.
Smith AD, Carter JR, Marcus RE (1984) The os vesalianum: an unusual cause of lateral foot pain a case report and review of the literature. Orthopedics 7:86–89PubMed
38.
Wilson TC, Wilson RC, Ouzounov KG (2011) The symptomatic os vesalianum as an uncommon cause of lateral foot pain: a case report. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 101:356–359CrossRef
39.
Case DT, Ossenberg NS, Burnett SE (1998) Os intermetatarseum: a heritable accessory bone of the human foot. Am J Phys Anthropol 107:199–209CrossRef
40.
Smith KM, Welch MB (2010) Painful os intermetatarseum. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 100:213–215CrossRef
41.
Chavali VH (2012) Os intermetatarseum—a case report. J Clin Orthop Trauma 3:54–57CrossRef
42.
Mehta V, Gupta V, Arora J, Nayyar A, Suri RK, Rath G (2011) An atypical composition of adductor hallucis co-existent with an accessory plantar muscle and duplication of flexor digiti minimi pedis. Clin Ter 162:361–363PubMed
43.
Athavale SA, Geetha GN, Swathi (2012) Morphology of flexor digitorum accessories muscle. Surg Radiol Anat 34:367–372CrossRef
44.
Asomugha AL, Chukwuanukwu TO, Nwajagu GI, Ukoha U (2005) An accessory flexor of the fifth toe. Niger J Clin Pract 8:130–132PubMed
Metadata
Title
Anatomical variation in the ankle and foot: from incidental finding to inductor of pathology. Part II: midfooot and forefoot
Authors
Maria Pilar Aparisi Gómez
Francisco Aparisi
Alessandra Bartoloni
Maria Alejandra Ferrando Fons
Giuseppe Battista
Giuseppe Guglielmi
Alberto Bazzocchi
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Insights into Imaging / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1869-4101
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-019-0747-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Insights into Imaging 1/2019 Go to the issue

Statement

Summary of the proceedings of the International Forum 2018: “Value-based radiology”

Original Article

Visible T1-hyperintensity of the dentate nucleus after multiple administrations of macrocyclic gadolinium-based contrast agents: yes or no?

Pictorial Review

The imaging appearances of various pericardial disorders

Review

Percutaneous consolidation of bone metastases: strategies and techniques

Statement

Interventional radiology in European radiology departments: a joint survey from the European Society of Radiology (ESR) and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE)

Pictorial Review

The value of CSF flow studies in the management of CSF disorders in children: a pictorial review