II型痛性足副舟骨影像学诊断价值

Abstract
Figure/Table
References (0)
Related Citation (15)

Download: PDF (1348 KB) HTML (1 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract Objective: To evaluate the diagnostic value of X-ray, CT, MRI and ultrasonography in type II painful accessory navicular bone (PANB). Methods: The X-ray, CT, MRI, and ultrasonic diagnostic data of 45 cases (from 42 patients) of type II PANB were retrospectively analyzed. The sensitivity and accuracy of PANB were compared between the four groups. Results: The sensitivity of X-ray, CT, MRI, ultrasonography diagnosis of type II PANB was 68.9% (31/45), 88.9% (40/45), 95.6% (43/45), 91.1% (41/45), respectively. The sensitivity of X-ray was lower than that of CT, MRI and ultrasonography, with statistical difference (P<0.05). The sensitivity of CT, MRI and ultrasonography in diagnosing type II PANB was high and there was no significant difference between them (P>0.05). The maximum diameter of positive cases measured respectively by X-ray, CT, MRI and ultrasonography was (11.5±6.6)mm, (9.5±7.3)mm, (9.3±7.1)mm, (11.8±6.8)mm, with no statistically significant difference between all groups (P>0.05). Conclusion: X-ray is less sensitive to the diagnosis of type II PANB. CT has higher sensitivity, but its imaging capability of soft tissue is poor. MRI has the highest sensitivity and can display the bone marrow edema and soft tissue lesions, but it costs more; Ultrasonography diagnosis, being highly sensitive, able to find the accessory bone, the fibrous junction and soft tissue lesions, can be used for dynamic multi angle scanning. In addition, ultrasonography is more convenient and less expensive. Therefore, it is a recommended screening method.

Key words： accessory navicular bone foot pain ultrasonography magnetic resonance imaging diagnosis

Received: 21 June 2018

	Service
	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	CHEN Shiyu
	ZANG Guoli
	XU Weiying
	HU Min
	XU Qing
	ZHAO Jia
	WANG Jiefeng

URL:

https://xb.wmu.edu.cn/EN/ OR https://xb.wmu.edu.cn/EN/Y2019/V49/I5/356

[1] PARK H, HWANG J H, SEO J O, et al. The relationship between accessory navicular and flat foot: A radiologic study [J]. J Pediatr Orthop, 2015, 35(7): 739-745.
[2] CHEONG I Y, KANG H J, KO H, et al. Genetic influence on accessory navicular bone in the foot: A Korean twin and family study[J]. Twin Res Hum Genet, 2017, 20(3): 236-241.
[3] MOSEL L D, KAT E, VOYVODIC F. Imaging of symptomatic type II accessory navicular bone[J]. Australas Radiol, 2004, 48(2): 267-271.
[4] KITER E, ERDAG N, KARATTOSUN V, et al. Tibialis posterior tendon abnormalities in feet with accessory navicular bone and platfoot[J]. Acta Orthop Scand, 1999, 70(6): 618-621.
[5] MILLER T T. Painful accessory bones of the foot[J]. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol, 2002, 6(2): 153-161.
[6] KALBOUNEH H, ALAJOULIN O, ALSALEM M, et al. Incidence and anatomical variations of accessory navicular bone in patients with footpain: A retrospective radiographic analysis[J]. Clin Anat, 2017, 30(4): 436-444.
[7] 张存, 俞光荣. 痛性足副舟骨诊断和治疗进展[J]. 国际骨科学杂志, 2011, 32(6): 360-363.
[8] 解冰, 田竞, 刘欣伟, 等. 副舟骨融合术治疗成人II型痛性足副舟骨临床疗效分析[J]. 中国骨伤, 2014, 27(10): 870-873.
[9] SENSES I, KITER E, GUNAL I. Restoring the continuity of the tibialis posterior tendon in the treatment of symptomatic accessory navicular with flat feet[J]. J Orthop Sci, 2004, 9(4): 408-409.
[10] LIU T H. Endoscopic accessory navicular synchondrosis fusion[J]. Arthrosc Tech, 2016, 5(6): e1267-e1272.
[11] LEONARD Z C, FORTIN P T. Adolescent accessory navicular, Foot Ankle Clin[J]. 2010, 15(2): 337-347.
[12] 胡觉清. 足副舟骨扭伤的影像学特征[J]. 临床军医杂志, 2013, 41(10): 1064-1065, 1076.
[13] JOHNSON T R, STEINBACH L S. Accessory navicular[A]. In: Johnson TR, Steinbach LS eds. Essentials of Musculoskeletal Imaging[M]. Rosemont: AAOS, 2004, 574-576.
[14] CHOI Y S, LEE K T, KANG H S, et al. MR imaging findings of painful type II accessory navicular bone: Correlation with surgical and pathologic studies[J]. Korean J Radiol, 2004, 5(4): 274-279.
[15] CHUANG Y W, TSAI W S, CHEN K H, et al. Clinical use of high-resolution ultrasonography for the diagnosis of type II accessory navicular bone[J]. Am J Phys Med Rehabil, 2012, 91(2): 177-181.
[16] 胡闽, 臧国礼, 陈仕宇. 超声诊断儿童痛性足副舟骨1例[J]. 中国医学影像学杂志, 2018, 26(2): 146-147.
[17] CHIU N T, JOU I M, LEE B F, et al. Symptomatic and asymptomatic accessory navicular bones: findings of Tc-99M MDP bone scintigraphy[J]. Clin Radiol, 2000, 55(5): 353-355.
[18] CHONG A, HA J M, LEE J Y. Clinical meaning of hot uptake on bone scan in symptomatic accessory navicular bones [J]. Nucl Med Mol Imaging, 2016, 50(4): 322-328.
[19] HUANG J, ZHANG Y, MA X, et al. Accessory navicular bone incidence in Chinese patients: a retrospective analysis of X-rays following trauma or progressive pain onset[J].Surg Radiol Anat, 2014, 36(2): 167-172.