medigraphic.com
ISSN 2007-087X (Print)
Órgano Oficial de la Sociedad Mexicana de Ortopedia Pediátrica

2024, Number 1-3

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Ortop Ped 2024; 26 (1-3)

Relationship between the morphological type of the accessory scaphoid and its function using the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society scale, in pediatric patients

González-Herrera EA, Arenas-Díaz AL, Barrón-Torres EA, Ordaz-Robles T, Guzmán-Martín CA

Language: Spanish
References: 15
Page: 5-9
PDF size: 237.37 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: the navicular accessory is a secondary ossification center located outside the scaphoid bone. It can be classified into three different morphological types. The most common symptom is pain and functional limitation. To evaluate the pain, alignment, and functionality of the foot and ankle, the AOFAS score is used. Objective: of the study were to determine if there are differences in the AOFAS scale score concerning the morphological type of accessory scaphoid and to identify the frequency of accessory scaphoids according to morphology in the studied population. Material and methods: This was an analytical, cross-sectional, and retrospective study conducted at the Hospital. The study included patients of both sexes aged between 8-18 years. Radiographic diagnosis and functional evaluation were performed with or without surgical treatment. We used the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test to determine normality and calculated interquartile ranges. We used Mann-Whitney U to determine the AOFAS score in patients with and without surgery and Kruskal-Wallis test. Results: of the study showed that 87 patients (160 feet) were diagnosed with accessory scaphoid. The age at diagnosis was between 10.10-12.4 years. 58.4% of patients were women, and 41.6% were men. 49% of the patients had accessory scaphoid in the right foot, and 51% had it in the left foot. The AOFAS score results showed that 10.6% of patients had an excellent score, 47.5% had a good score, 39.4% had an average score, and 2.5% had a poor score. 52% of patients underwent surgical treatment. Conclusion: the study found that there was no statistically significant difference between the AOFAS score and scaphoid morphology. However, a low score on the AOFAS scale was a predisposing factor for surgical treatment.


REFERENCES

  1. Knapik DM, Guraya SS, Conry KT, Cooperman DR, Liu RW. Longitudinal radiographic behavior of accessory navicular in pediatric patients. J Child Orthop. 2016; 10(6): 685-689. Available in: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11832-016-0777-x

  2. Wariach S, Karim K, Sarraj M, Gaber K, Singh A, Kishta W. Assessing the outcomes associated with accessory navicular bone surgery-a systematic review. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2022; 15(5): 377-384. Available in: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12178-022-09772-5

  3. Ugolini PA, Raikin SM. The accessory navicular. Foot Ankle Clin. 2004; 9(1): 165-180. Available in: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1083-7515(03)00176-1.

  4. 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(5): 327-333. Available in: http://dx.doi.org/10.5144/0256-4947.2022.327

  5. Rammelt S, Sands AK. The accessory navicular and its association with flatfoot. Fub & Sprunggelenk. 2020; 18(1): 60-71. doi: 10.1016/S1083-7515(03)00176-1. Available in: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fuspru.2020.01.011

  6. Knapik DM, 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. doi: 10.1302/1863-2548.13.180168.

  7. Campbell JT, Jeng CL. Painful accessory navicular and spring ligament injuries in athletes. Clin Sports Med. 2020; 39(4): 859-876. Available in: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.csm.2020.05.002

  8. Kamel SI, Belair JA, Hegazi TM, Halpern EJ, Desai V, Morrison WB et al. Painful type II os naviculare: introduction of a standardized, reproducible classification system. Skeletal Radiol. 2020; 49(12): 1977-1985. Available in: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00256-020-03503-y

  9. Malviya A, Makwana N, Laing P. Correlation of the AOFAS scores with a generic health QUALY score in foot and ankle surgery. Foot Ankle Int. 2007; 28(4): 494-498. doi: 10.3113/FAI.2007.0494.

  10. Di Gennaro GL, Stallone S, Olivotto E, Zarantonello P, Magnani M, Tavernini T, Stilli S, Trisolino G. Operative versus nonoperative treatment in children with painful rigid flatfoot and talocalcaneal coalition. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020; 21(1): 185. doi: 10.1186/s12891-020-03213-5. Available in: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03213-5

  11. Dare DM, Dodwell ER. Pediatric flatfoot: cause, epidemiology, assessment, and treatment. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2014; 26(1): 93-100. doi: 10.1097/MOP.0000000000000039.

  12. Keles-Celik N, Kose O, Sekerci R, Aytac G, Turan A, Guler F. Accessory ossicles of the foot and ankle: disorders and a review of the literature. Cureus. 2017; 9(11): e1881. Available in: http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.1881

  13. Zeng G, Hu X, Chen Y, Yang T, Qiu X, Li C, Song W. Comparison of outcomes of arthrodesis and reconstruction (advancement), posterior tibial tendon with excision of accessory tarsal navicular bone (Kidner procedure) in type 2 accessory navicula. Foot Ankle Surg. 2020; 26(8): 930-934. Available in: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fas.2019.12.005

  14. Pretell-Mazzini J, Murphy RF, Sawyer JR, Spence DD, Warner WC Jr, Beaty JH, Moisan A, Kelly DM. Surgical treatment of symptomatic accessory navicular in children and adolescents. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2014; 43(3): 110-3.

  15. Yang A, Hennrikus WL, Penn State Hershey Pediatric Bone, Hershey PA, Institute Joint. Surgical outcomes of accessory navicular in adolescent athletes. Orthop J Sports Med. 2021; 9(7_suppl3): 2325967121S0014. Available in: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967121s00140



EVIDENCE LEVEL

III




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com