1Coskun N, Yuksel M, Cevener M, et aL Incidence of accessory ossides and se.samoid bones in the feet= a radiographic study of the Turkish subjects. Surg Radiol Anat, 2009; 31(1):19-24.
2Perdikakis E, Grigoraki E, Karantanas A. Os naviculare: the multi ossicle configuration of a nom~al variant. Skeletal Radiol, 2011; 40(1):85-88.
3IV~ller "IT. Painful accesmry bones of the foot. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol, 2002; 6(2) :15-161.
4McKusick VA. Catalogs of autosomal dominant, autosomal recessive, and X- linked phenotypes[A]. In: McKusick VA ed. Mendelian Inheritance in Man [M]. 2th ed, lMtimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1978:147.
5Kiter E, Erduran M, Gtmal I. Inheritance of the ames,soU navicular bone. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg, 2010; 120(11):582-583.
6Dobbs MB, Walton T. Autommal dominant transmission of accessory navicular. Iowa Orthop .1, 2004; 24(24):84-85.
7Coughlin MJ. Sernoids and aecesmry bones of the foot[A]. In: Coughlin MJ. Maran RA, hltzmea CL eds. Surgery of the Foot and Ankle[M]. 8th ed. Philadelphia: Mosby, 2007:531- 610.
8Choi YS, Lee KT, Kang HS, et al. MR imaging findings of painful type Ⅱacces,mry navicular bone: correlation with surgical and pathologic studies. Korean J Radiol, 2004; 5(4):274-279.
9Isever AS, M]nden K, E.shed I, et al. Accesmry navicular lone: when ankle pain does not originate from the ankle. Clin Rheurmtol, 2007; 26(12) :2143 -2144.
10Pricbasuk S, nphurinsukktd O. Kidner predure for symptomatic aecessory navicular and its relation to pes planus. Foot Ankle Int, 1995; 16(8):500 -503.
