Next Article in Journal
Management of the Patella in Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Narrative Review of Available Techniques
Previous Article in Journal
Accuracy of Deep Learning-Driven MR Arthrography of the Shoulder: Compressed 3D in Comparison to Standard FSE Sequences
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Osteology
Volume 6
Issue 1
10.3390/osteology6010005
osteology-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Stepping Up: Accessory Bones of the Foot in the 21st Century Identified Skeletal Collection (Portugal)

by
Larisa Sambú
1,
Francisco Curate
1,2,* and
Ana Maria Silva
1,2,3
1
Department of Life Sciences, Faculty of Sciences and Technology, University of Coimbra, 3000-456 Coimbra, Portugal
2
Research Centre for Anthropology and Health (CIAS), Department of Life Sciences, University of Coimbra, 3000-456 Coimbra, Portugal
3
University of Lisbon Archaeology Center (UNIARQ), University of Lisbon, 1600-214 Lisbon, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Osteology 2026, 6(1), 5; https://doi.org/10.3390/osteology6010005
Submission received: 27 October 2025 / Revised: 13 December 2025 / Accepted: 25 February 2026 / Published: 3 March 2026
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Background/Objectives: The anatomical variability of the human foot represents a subject of substantial interest, offering valuable insights in anthropological research as well as in clinical practice. The aim of this study is to document anatomical variants of the tarsal bones in a CISC//XXI skeletal sample (21st Century Identified Skeletal Collection), with a particular focus on the prevalence of accessory ossicles. Methods: The studied sample consisted of 163 individuals (83 females and 80 males). The prevalence of six accessory tarsal bones was recorded (os trigonum, calcaneum secundarium, the accessory navicular bone, os sustentaculum, os vesalianum and os intermetatarseum). Results: A total of 35 individuals (21.4%; 35/163) exhibited at least one accessory ossicle, with 13 females (15.7%; 13/83) and 22 males (27.5%; 22/80). The os trigonum and calcaneum secundarium were the most frequently observed accessory bones, respectively, in 9.3% (15/162) and 6.9% (11/159) of the individuals. No sex differences were observed. All accessory bones occurred more frequently unilaterally, and no co-occurrences of accessory bones were observed. Conclusions: These findings are crucial in both the biomedical and anthropological fields, where a detailed knowledge of foot anatomy and its variations is relevant.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Morphological variations in the human skeleton, particularly those observed in accessory bones (secondary ossicles), fusion defects, and other rare anatomical anomalies, are of notable interest in anthropological and clinical contexts [1,2,3]. The study of foot bones enables anthropologists to identify unique skeletal characteristics, such as anatomical variants and fusion patterns. When these characteristics are correlated with clinical evidence, they can be used to ascertain individual identity [4]. In clinical terms, such analyses can also provide insights into locomotor function, congenital or developmental anomalies, degenerative changes, and trauma patterns. Variations in foot morphology include bipartitions, bony fusions, sesamoid bones, and accessory ossicles [2,5,6].
A comprehensive understanding of tarsal anomalies is of paramount importance for both clinicians and orthopedical researchers, as it offers invaluable insights into clinical assessments, diagnostic processes, and treatment planning [1,2,7,8,9]. Anatomical variants in the tarsal region frequently manifest as deviations in the number, shape, size, or position of the bones [10], being often identified fortuitously during routine clinical examinations, which complicates the process of determining their etiology and morphological significance.
Accessory ossicles, also known as accessory or supernumerary bones, represent skeletal variations that are typically small in size. While often asymptomatic, they can occasionally be associated with pain or functional impairment [2,11]. These ossicles can occur as additional independent elements or as abnormal subdivisions of existing bones [12,13]. These subdivisions have their origin in either the incomplete fusion of the secondary ossification centers or the atypical division of the primary ossification centers [1]. The presentation of accessory ossicles is heteroclite, manifesting as unilateral or bilateral formations. In certain cases, the ossicles can fuse with adjacent bones [14].
Early research focused on foot anatomical variants relied heavily on cadaveric dissections, which provided critical insights into their anatomy and prevalence [10,15,16,17,18,19]. Although symptomatic ossicles are considered uncommon, the recent literature indicates an increasing number of cases describing associated pain syndromes and degenerative changes [2,9,11,12,14,20,21,22,23].
The reported prevalence of accessory ossicles of the foot varies considerably across studies, which likely stems from multiple biases, as highlighted by Silva and Curate [3], including differences in the type of sample or imaging technique, the non-detection of asymptomatic cases in clinical settings, and inconsistencies in prevalence estimation (per foot or per individual).
The aim of this study is to provide up-to-date reference data on the frequency of six accessory foot ossicles (os trigonum, os calcaneum secundarium, navicular accessory bone, os sustentaculum, os vesalianum, and os intermetatarseum) in a Portuguese sample from the 21st Century Identified Skeletal Collection (CISC/XXI). In addition to frequency, patterns of co-occurrence, laterality, and potential differences by biological sex and age were also assessed.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Sample

The scientific study of human skeletal remains entails deep ethical considerations, as these remains embody the lived experience of individuals situated within religious, familial, and cultural contexts. Accordingly, the rights of the deceased were respected, and the remains were examined with dignity and care. Authorization for the research was obtained from the curator and the Scientific Commission of the Laboratory of Forensic Anthropology according to the Portuguese Law and within the mandate of the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Coimbra, Portugal (CE_026.2016).
The analysis was conducted on the 21st Century Identified Skeleton Collection (CISC/XXI), housed at the University of Coimbra (Forensic Anthropology Laboratory, Department of Life Sciences, Coimbra, Portugal). This reference collection results from a scientific protocol between the University of Coimbra and the Santarém City Council, enacted in 2007, and consists of 302 adult skeletons (162 females; 140 males), mostly elderly individuals, from the Cemitério dos Capuchos (Santarém), belonging to individuals exhumed between 1999 and 2016. All individuals curated in the collection are Portuguese nationals of South European origin that died between 1982 and 2012. Documentary information is available for each individual, including age at death, biological sex, nationality, date of death, date of inhumation, and date of exhumation [24,25].
The study sample consisted of 162 adult individuals (82 females; 80 males), with ages at death ranging from 25 to 101 years old (average age at death = 75.0 years; SD = 15.8). Individuals included in the study presented with both feet and displayed a relatively good skeletal preservation.

2.2. The Accessory Ossicles of the Foot

The nature of the sample, i.e., dry bone, constrained the selection of the accessory bones, since it is impossible to fathom if every small accessory and sesamoid bone was collected during excavation. Therefore, six accessory foot bones were included: os trigonum, os calcaneum secundarium, navicular accessory bone, os sustentaculum, os vesalianum, and os intermetatarseum. Operational definitions for these ossicles follow Silva and Curate [3].

2.3. Statistical Analysis

The frequencies of each accessory ossicle were calculated and are reported as prevalences in percentage (per individual and per foot). A chi-square test of independence (X2) was conducted under the null hypothesis that the proportion of individuals with an accessory ossicle is the same in both sexes. Laterality was also assessed with a chi-square test. A Student’s t-test (independent samples) was employed to assess the null hypothesis that the average age at death is identical in individuals with and without accessory foot ossicles. Normality of the sample was evaluated with a Q-Q plot, and homoscedasticity with a Levene’s test. The critical p-value for rejecting the null hypothesis was set at p < 0.05. All statistical analyses were performed using Jamovi (v. 2.3.28).

3. Results

Of the 162 skeletons analyzed, 35 individuals (21.6%; 35/162), 13 females (15.9%; 13/82) and 22 males (27.5%; 22/80) exhibited at least one accessory ossicle. There is no statistically significant association between sex and the presence of accessory foot bones (X2: 2.082, df = 1, p = 0.149). A small difference was recorded in the mean ages at death of individuals with (mean = 71.5 years old; SD = 16.9) and without (mean = 76.1 years old; SD = 15.4) accessory ossicles, but the difference is not statistically significant (t-test: 1.55, df = 161, p = 0.123).
No co-occurrence of accessory foot bones was recorded. The prevalence of the observed ossicles of the foot per individual is summarized in Table 1. Similarly, the prevalence of ossicles in each foot is shown in Table 2 and Table 3.

3.1. Os Trigonum

The most frequently observed accessory bone was os trigonum, present in 15 individuals (9.3%, 15/162; Table 2). The prevalence is 8.5% in females (7/82) and 10.0% in males (8/80), with no significant differences by sex (X2: 0.745, df = 1, p = 0.388). Six individuals (40%, 6/15), three females and three males, present with the ossicle bilaterally (Figure 1).
Of the 15 individuals presenting with this ossicle, 14 (93.3%; 14/15) exhibit a fused os trigonum. Two individuals (a male and a female) show bilateral fusion of this ossicle (Figure 2). A unilateral fusion of this accessory bone was recorded in six males (three on the left foot and three on the right foot) and six females (four on the left foot and two on the right foot) (Figure 3).
The prevalence of this ossicle is 7.1% (11/154) for the left foot (Table 2), 6.3% in females (5/79) and 8.0% in males (6/75). Five of the affected women (100%, 5/5) and four men (66.7%, 4/6) present with a fused os trigonum on the left foot. In the right foot, the prevalence is 6.5% (10/155), five females (6.4%, 5/78) and five males (6.5%, 5/77, Table 3). Three females (60.0%; 3/5) and four males (80.0%; 4/5) show a fused os trigonum in the right foot. This ossicle was observed bilaterally in 40% (6/15) of the individuals. Five (55.6%; 5/9) unilateral cases were found in the left foot and four (44.4%; 4/9) in the right foot. Only one free ossicle was detected, specifically in the right foot of a male subject (Figure 4).

3.2. Calcaneum Secundarium

Calcaneum secundarium (CS) is the second most prevalent ossicle observed in this study, with a total prevalence per individual of 6.9% (11/159) (Table 1). The ossicle is present in three females (3.8%; 3/80) and eight males (10.1%; 8/80), but the difference between sexes is not statistically significant (X2: 2.51; df = 1; p = 0.113). Three individuals, one female and two males, exhibit the ossicle bilaterally (27.3%; 3/11; Figure 5).
On the left foot, the prevalence is 3.2% (5/154, Table 3), 1.3% in females (1/77) and 5.2% in males (4/77). The prevalence in the right foot is 5.8% (9/155, Table 3), 3.8% in females (3/78) and 7.8% in males (6/77). This accessory bone is expressed bilaterally in 27.3% of individuals. The majority of unilateral cases (75%; 6/8) were observed in the right foot, while only two left unilateral cases were recorded (25%; 2/8) (Figure 6).
A statistically significant association was observed between laterality and the presence of calcaneum secundarium (X2: 39.2, df = 1, p = < 0.001), with a higher prevalence in the right foot. The most common location of this ossicle is on the anterior facet of the calcaneus, specifically on the anteromedial aspect. Of the nine calcanei with CS, five exhibit separate facets, while the remaining four show a continuous facet.

3.3. Os Sustentaculum

This ossicle was not identified in any of the 163 individuals under study.

3.4. Os Vesalianum

This accessory bone was observed only in the right foot of one female (CISC/XXI/25) (0.6%, 1/159, Table 1 and Table 3).

3.5. Accessory Navicular Bone

A Type II accessory navicular was identified in the right foot of one male (CISC/XXI/72) (0.6%, 1/160; Table 1 and Table 3; Figure 7).

3.6. Os Intermetatarseum

Only fused cases of this small ossicle were detected. This ossicle was identified in seven individuals (4.5%, 7/155, Table 1), two females (2.5%, 2/79), and five males (6.6%, 5/76), with no statistically significant difference between the sexes (X2: 1.47, df = 1, p = 0.225). Prevalence on the left foot is 2.8% (4/143, Table 2), 2.7% (2/73) in females, and 2.9% (2/70) in males. On the right side, the total prevalence is 2.7% (4/150, Table 3), with all four cases belonging to males (5.5%, 4/73). There is no association between laterality and the presence of the ossicle (X2:2.07, df = 1, p = 0.151). The ossicle occurs bilaterally in one male (14.3%, 1/7), with unilateral cases prevailing, three in the left foot and three in the right foot. In five cases, the ossicle is fused to the medial cuneiform (Figure 8), and in two cases to the second metatarsal (Figure 9).

4. Discussion

This study reports a 21.4% prevalence (35/163) of accessory tarsal ossicles in a reference sample of Portuguese skeletal remains, a frequency broadly consistent with, though slightly higher than, that observed in a chronologically earlier Portuguese sample (Ref. [3]: 18.3%; 89/486). Seemingly, there were no changes over a relatively short period of time in the frequency of accessory tarsal ossicles in the Portuguese population—a particularly interesting feature when accounting for the changing political and socioeconomic circumstances of the country [26]. The prevalence range reported in the broader literature spans from 18.0% to 40.2% [12,14,27,28,29], reflecting significant morphological variability across populations and diverse methodological approaches.
Non-anatomical factors may account for the relatively low frequency observed in our study, particularly the application of different study methodologies and samples [3], and the observation of distinct types of ossicles [30], including those associated with the tibia and fibula. Variation in the preservation and completeness of foot bones within the CISC/XXI may have constrained the identification of smaller ossicles. In addition, taphonomic alterations and the lack of specialized recovery procedures during the exhumation of the individuals that compose the reference skeletal collection [25] could have further contributed to the underrepresentation of these small and fragile bone variants.
The results corroborate previous findings that accessory ossicles are distributed similarly across sexes, with no statistically significant differences observed between males (27.5%) and females (15.7%)—a pattern consistently noted in other studies [3,12,14,28,31]. Nevertheless, the lack of significant sex differences should be interpreted with caution, as the sample size may have limited the ability to detect the influence of sex in the expression of accessory bones. The co-occurrence of accessory foot bones was not observed. In fact, co-occurrence is not frequent [3,16], varying from 1.6% to 10.6% [3,12,14,28,31]. Usually, age is not considered as a demographic factor in the appearance or expression of foot ossicles and, as in this study, it is similar in both affected and non-affected individuals [3].
These findings reinforce the importance of accounting for anatomical variations in both clinical and anthropological contexts. Accessory ossicles, particularly in the tarsus, may mimic pathological conditions on radiographic imaging or influence biomechanical interpretations in bioarcheological reconstructions.

4.1. Os Trigonum

Os trigonum is one of the most thoroughly documented in both anthropological and clinical literature [1,2,3,12,14,31]. Cerrato et al. [32] noted that individuals engaged in activities involving repeated plantar flexion (including, e.g., dancers [33]) are more likely to develop or retain this ossicle, suggesting a functional or biomechanical component in its manifestation. Studies based on medical imaging consistently report higher prevalence rates when compared to direct skeletal analyses. In the present sample, 15 (9.3%) individuals presented with os trigonum. Previous research studies report prevalence rates between 0.8% and 25.0%, varying by population and employed methodology [2,3,10,14,16,20,27,28,29,34,35,36].
The observed prevalence in the CISC/XXI skeletal sample supports the empirical hypothesis that medical imaging-based studies can overestimate the presence of the os trigonum, possibly due to its cartilaginous or partially ossified form in living individuals, which may not always persist or be recovered in dry bone collections. As previously noted, comparisons across studies require particular caution, as data collection methods vary considerably [3]. Most radiographic studies classify only unfused os trigonum as present, whereas osteological studies involving dissection or dry bone analysis can include both unfused and fused forms. The interpretation of fused cases is not always straightforward—particularly in distinguishing an enlarged posterolateral process of the talus from a completely fused os trigonum in the absence of a visible fusion line [37]. To avoid misclassification in this study, only cases with a clearly identifiable fusion line or sulcus were recorded as positive findings.
Regarding laterality, both the present study and the previous literature suggest that os trigonum is predominantly unilateral, but without a noticeable propensity for the left or right foot. Bilaterality appears to be less common, with most studies estimating bilateral occurrence in only 5–10% of cases [3,12,14,16]. As with other accessory tarsal ossicles, no significant sex differences were observed in the present sample, a finding consistent with previous studies [3,12].

4.2. Calcaneum Secundarium

The prevalence of the calcaneum secundarium varies widely in the literature, ranging from 0.1% to 11.8% [3,14,35,36,38]. This variability can be attributed to differences in diagnostic methods, study populations, and inclusion criteria. In the present osteological sample, individual prevalence was 6.9%. Silva [36] reported a prevalence of 11.8% in a prehistoric Portuguese sample, significantly higher than in other populations such as four non-industrial groups (4.4%) and an early 20th-century U.S. sample (1.9%) [39]. Population homogeneity due to geographic isolation and/or marriage customs may account for the elevated rate in the prehistoric sample [36].
The relative uncommonness of CS partly explains the lack of robust data regarding laterality and sex distribution. In this study, CS was observed in three females (3.8%) and eight males (10.1%), with no statistically significant sex difference. Only three individuals—one female and two males—presented bilateral CS (27.3%, 3/11). A statistically significant association was found between CS presence and laterality, with a higher frequency on the right foot. However, earlier studies, such as Pfitzner’s [10], described a tendency for bilateral occurrence, suggesting potential population-specific patterns.
The most common location for CS was the anterior facet of the calcaneus, specifically on the anteromedial aspect. Nine calcanei with CS had continuous facets, while five showed separate ones. Anderson [17] associated CS with separated facets, whereas Mann [39] found it more commonly associated with continuous facets. Future studies could clarify this relationship and offer further insights into the interaction between facet morphology and the presence of CS.

4.3. Os Sustentaculum

Os sustentaculum is generally asymptomatic and clinically insignificant but, in certain cases, it can become symptomatic [2]. This accessory ossicle was not observed in the sample from the CISC/XXI, aligning with its rarity, as reported prevalences fluctuate between 0% and 1.0% [1,10,28,30,40]. The first documented instance of this ossicle was by Pfitzner in 1896, who recorded a frequency of 0.5% in dissected feet [10].

4.4. Os Vesalianum

Os vesalianum is a rare ossicle located at the proximal base of the fifth metatarsal within the peroneus brevis tendon [3,41]. It was first identified by Andreas Vesalius in the De Humani Corporis Fabrica [3] and later studied by Pfitzner [10] and Dwight [15]. Its prevalence ranges from 0% to 5.9% [3,10,14,27,28,29,42]. In this study, the ossicle was identified in a single female individual (1.3%) on the right foot.
This ossicle is typically round or oval and can articulate with the proximal end of the fifth metatarsal. In the present case, the ossicle showed well-defined cortical margins. Some studies suggest that it is slightly more common in males [28,42].

4.5. Accessory Navicular

The accessory navicular—also referred to as os tibiale externum or naviculare secundarium—is located medially to the navicular tuberosity [1]. It is one of the most common accessory foot bones in clinical settings and is usually asymptomatic. When symptomatic, it often manifests during childhood or early adulthood as localized medial foot pain [43]. Prevalence ranges from 1.2% to 28.3% in medical studies [10,14,16,27,38,44,45,46]. In anatomical and archaeological collections, however, lower prevalence rates are consistently observed, varying from 1.0% to 5.0% [3,47,48]. In the present study, this ossicle was identified in only one male individual (0.6%), located on the right foot. The ossicle corresponded to a Type II accessory navicular—the most common of the three types and the most easily recognizable in human skeletal remains [47]. The porosity, an area of reactive bone remodeling, observed in this case may be associated with an infectious process.
Some studies convey a higher frequency in females [43,49,50], while others report no significant differences between sexes [3,44,47]. Similarly, reported patterns of lateralization differ across studies: while some authors describe a bilateral predominance [10,49,51], others have found no consistent asymmetry [44,45].

4.6. Os Intermetatarseum

This anatomical variant is uncommon, with estimated prevalence rates ranging from 0.0% to 12.5% [3,10,12,15,27,28,46,52,53]. In the CISC/XXI sample, the prevalence of os intermetatarseum is 4.5%, consistent with previous studies but higher than in another Portuguese skeletal collection [3]. Bilaterality was only observed in a male individual (14.3%), below the rate reported by Case et al. [53]. Usually, anatomical/anthropological studies convey higher prevalences than medical imaging studies [3]. The discrepancy may stem from the ossicle’s small size and frequent fusion, as skeletal analyses allow for direct inspection and clearer identification of fused variants, especially those involving the 1st and 2nd metatarsals [53].

5. Conclusions

The identification and documentation of accessory foot ossicles in reference skeletal collections are essential for advancing both anthropological and clinical knowledge of foot anatomy, helping distinguish normal variants from pathology, clarifying developmental and population-level variations, improving diagnostic accuracy in both osteological and imaging analyses, informing interpretations of foot biomechanics, or indicating genetic affinities. The present study, based on the 21st Century Identified Skeletal Collection, provides updated data on the prevalence and distribution of these anatomical variants in a modern Portuguese sample. The results show a relatively low prevalence of these ossicles that is similar to a chronologically older sample from Portugal. Limitations of this study include potential underrepresentation due to preservation variability, taphonomic loss, and differences in recording methods. Despite these constraints, this research highlights the relevance of studying accessory foot ossicles in reference skeletal collections as sustained interdisciplinary investigations (integrating skeletal, clinical, and imaging approaches) can advance the scientific understanding of these anatomical variants and their effects on human variation and health.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.C. and A.M.S.; methodology, L.S., F.C. and A.M.S.; validation, F.C. and A.M.S.; formal analysis, L.S.; data curation, L.S.; writing—original draft preparation, L.S., F.C. and A.M.S.; writing—review and editing, L.S., F.C. and A.M.S.; supervision, F.C. and A.M.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The co-authors Francisco Curate and Ana Maria Silva were financed by the R&D Unit Research Centre for Anthropology and Health, with the reference UIDB/00283/2020, funded by the Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT/MCTES) through national funds (PIDDAC) (https://doi.org/10.54499/UIDB/00283/2020).

Institutional Review Board Statement

All anthropological research conducted on the 21st Century Identified Skeletal Collection of the University of Coimbra (Portugal) is subject to mandatory authorization by the Curator of the collection and by a Scientific Commission constituted for this purpose. As such, research clearance for this study was granted by the curator (Professor Maria Teresa Ferreira) and the Scientific Commission of the Laboratory of Forensic Anthropology according to the Portuguese Law and within the mandate of the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Coimbra, Portugal (reference number: CE_026.2016).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable. Human skeletal remains prevail as a material embodiment of once-living people but informed consent is not an issue since the individuals included in the study are long deceased, belonging to cemetery-derived reference skeletal collections. In Portugal, consent is transferred to the municipalities (the legitimate representative of the society and communities), as the decision to dispose of the human remains is legitimized by their legal directive to manage the cemeteries (under Decree-Law 411/98 of 30 December 1998).

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Acknowledgments

We are indebted to the curator of the CISC/XXI, Maria Teresa Ferreira.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Kelikian, A.; Sarrafian, S.K. Sarrafian’s Anatomy of the Foot and Ankle: Descriptive, Topographic, Functiona; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2011; Volume 102. [Google Scholar]
  2. Mellado, J.M.; Ramos, A.; Salvadó, E.; Camins, A.; Danús, M.; Saurí, A. Accessory Ossicles and Sesamoid Bones of the Ankle and Foot: Imaging Findings, Clinical Significance and Differential Diagnosis. Eur. Radiol. 2003, 13, L164–L177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Silva, A.M.; Curate, F. Accessory Foot Bones in a Portuguese Identified Skeletal Collection. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 17169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Verna, E.; Piercecchi-Marti, M.D.; Chaumoitre, K.; Adalian, P. Relevance of Discrete Traits in Forensic Anthropology: From the First Cervical Vertebra to the Pelvic Girdle. Forensic Sci. Int. 2015, 253, 134.e1–134.e7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Silva, A.M.; Silva, A.L. Unilateral Non-Osseous Calcaneonavicular Coalition: Report of a Portuguese Archeological Case. Anthropol. Sci. 2010, 118, 61–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Curate, F.; Silva, A.M. Developmental Anomalies of the Foot Bones: Coalitions and Bipartitions in the Coimbra Identified Skeletal Collection. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 2025, 35, e3398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Rühli, F.J.; Solomon, L.B.; Henneberg, M. High Prevalence of Tarsal Coalitions and Tarsal Joint Variants in a Recent Cadaver Sample and Its Possible Significance. Clin. Anat. 2003, 16, 411–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Summers, A. Accessory Ossicles and Sesamoid Bones: Recognition and Treatment. Emerg. Nurse 2015, 22, 27–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Lawson, J.P. Symptomatic Radiographic Variants in Extremities. Radiology 1985, 157, 625–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Pfitzner, W. Beiträge Zur Kenntniss Des Menschlichen Extremitätenskelets. Morphol. Arb. 1896, 6. [Google Scholar]
  11. Krapf, D.; Krapf, S.; Wyss, C. Calcaneus Secundarius—A Relevant Differential Diagnosis in Ankle Pain: A Case Report and Review of the Literature. J. Med. Case Rep. 2015, 9, 127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Coskun, N.; Yuksel, M.; Cevener, M.; Arican, R.Y.; 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Silva, A.M. Non-Osseous Calcaneonavicular Coalition in the Portuguese Prehistoric Population: Report of Two Cases. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 2005, 15, 449–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Candan, B.; Torun, E.; Dikici, R. The Prevalence of Accessory Ossicles, Sesamoid Bones, and Biphalangism of the Foot and Ankle: A Radiographic Study. Foot Ankle Orthop. 2022, 7, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Dwight, T. A Clinical Atlas, Variations of the Bones of the Hands and Feet; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1907. [Google Scholar]
  16. Heimerzheim, A. Über Einige Akzessorische Fußwurzelknochen Nebst Ihrer Chirurgischen Bedeutung. Dtsch. Z. Chir. 1925, 190, 96–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Anderson, T. Calcaneus Secundarius: An Osteo-archaeological Note. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 1988, 77, 529–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Heikel, H.V.A. Coalitio Calcaneo-Navicularis and Calcaneus Secundarius: A Clinical and Radiographic Study of Twenty-Three Patients. Acta Orthop. 1962, 32, 72–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Henderson, R.S. Os Intermetatarseum and a Possible Relationship to Hallux Valgus. J. Bone Jt. Surg. Br. 1963, 45-B, 117–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lee, J.H.; Kyung, M.G.; Cho, Y.J.; Go, T.W.; Lee, D.Y. Prevalence of Accessory Bones and Tarsal Coalitions Based on Radiographic Findings in a Healthy, Asymptomatic Population. CiOS Clin. Orthop. Surg. 2020, 12, 245–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Debnar, M.; Kopp, L.; Baba, V.; Rammelt, S. Accessory Bones at the Foot and Ankle: A Comprehensive Review. Fuss Sprunggelenk 2023, 21, 121–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Vaz, A.; Trippia, C.R. Small but Troublesome: Accessory Ossicles with Clinical Significance. Radiol. Bras. 2018, 51, 248–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. McAlister, J.E.; Urooj, U. Os Trigonum Syndrome. Clin. Podiatr. Med. Surg. 2021, 38, 279–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Ferreira, M.T.; Coelho, C.; Makhoul, C.; Navega, D.; Gonçalves, D.; Cunha, E.; Curate, F. New Data about the 21st Century Identified Skeletal Collection (University of Coimbra, Portugal). Int. J. Leg. Med. 2021, 135, 1087–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Ferreira, M.T.; Vicente, R.; Navega, D.; Gonçalves, D.; Curate, F.; Cunha, E. A New Forensic Collection Housed at the University of Coimbra, Portugal: The 21st Century Identified Skeletal Collection. Forensic Sci. Int. 2014, 245, 202.e1–202.e5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Maranho, R.; Ferreira, M.T.; Curate, F. Secular Trends in the Size and Shape of the Scapula among the Portuguese between the 19th and the 21st Centuries. Biology 2023, 12, 928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Cilli, F.; Akçaoglu, M. The Incidence of Accessory Bones of the Foot and Their Clinical Significance. Acta Orthop. Traumatol. Turc. 2005, 39, 243–246. [Google Scholar]
  28. Kalbouneh, H.; Alajoulin, O.; Shawaqfeh, J.; Mustafa, A.; Jaber, S.; Zaben, S.; Zapen, J.; Alsalem, M. Accessory Ossicles in the Region of the Foot and Ankle: An Epidemiologic Survey in a Jordanian Population. Medicina 2021, 57, 1178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Vasiljevic, V.; Markovic, L.; Vasic-Vilic, J.; Mihajlovic, D.; Nikolic, B.; Milosevic, S. Accessory Bones of the Feet: Radiological Analysis of Frequency. Vojnosanit. Pregl. 2010, 67, 469–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Keles-Celik, N.; Kose, O.; Sekerci, R.; Aytac, G.; Turan, A.; Güler, F. Accessory Ossicles of the Foot and Ankle: Disorders and a Review of the Literature. Cureus 2017, 9, e1881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kir, H.; Kandemir, S.; Olgaç, M.; Yıldırım, O.; Şen, G. The Incidence and Distribution of Accessory Ossicles of the Foot. Med. Bull. Sisli Etfal Hosp. 2011, 45, 44–47. [Google Scholar]
  32. Cerrato, R.; Myerson, M.S.; Jeng, C. The Symptomatic Os Trigonum: A Study of 27 Cases. Foot Ankle Int. 2006, 27, 42–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Marotta, J.J.; Micheli, L.J. Os Trigonum Impingement in Dancers. Am. J. Sports Med. 1992, 20, 533–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Stieda, L. Ueber Secundäre Fusswurzelknochen. Arch. Anat. Physiol. Wiss. Med. 1869, 108–111. [Google Scholar]
  35. Koo, B.S.; Song, Y.; Lee, S.; Sung, Y.K.; Sung, I.H.; Jun, J.B. Prevalence and Distribution of Sesamoid Bones and Accessory Ossicles of the Foot as Determined by Digital Tomosynthesis. Clin. Anat. 2017, 30, 1072–1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Silva, A.M. Foot Anomalies in the Late Neolithic/Chalcolithic Population Exhumed from the Rock Cut Cave of São Paulo 2 (Almada, Portugal). Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 2011, 21, 420–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zwiers, R.; Baltes, T.P.A.; Opdam, K.T.M.; Wiegerinck, J.I.; van Dijk, C.N. Prevalence of Os Trigonum on CT Imaging. Foot Ankle Int. 2018, 39, 338–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Tsuruta, T.; Shiokawa, Y.; Kato, A.; Matsumoto, T.; Yamazoe, Y.; Oike, T.; Sugiyama, T.; Saito, M. Radiological Study of the Accessory Skeletal Elements in the Foot and Ankle. J. Jpn. Orthop. Assoc. 1981, 55, 357–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mann, R.W. Calcaneus Secundarius: Description and Frequency in Six Skeletal Samples. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 1990, 81, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bencardino, J.; Rosenberg, Z.S.; Beltran, J.; Sheskier, S. Os Sustentaculi: Depiction on MR Images. Skelet. Radiol. 1997, 26, 505–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. De Castro Correia, M.; Rodrigues Lopes, T. Knowing Your Accessory Foot Ossicles and Avoiding Misdiagnoses: A Case Report of Painful Os Vesalianum Pedis. Cureus 2022, 14, 11–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Pitchandi, M.; Mallikarjun, A.; Bhuvaneswari, V. Radiological Study on the Incidence and Clinical Importance of Os Vesalianum of 5th Metatarsal Bone. Int. J. Anat. Radiol. Surg. 2019, 8, 9–11. [Google Scholar]
  43. Ugolini, P.A.; Raikin, S.M. The Accessory Navicular. Foot Ankle Clin. 2004, 9, 165–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Keles Coskun, N.; Arican, R.Y.; Utuk, A.; Ozcanli, H.; Sindel, T. The Incidence of Accessory Navicular Bone Types in Turkish Subjects. Surg. Radiol. Anat. 2009, 31, 675–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Geist, E.S. Supernumerary Bones of the Foot—A Röntgen Study of the Feet of One Hundred Normal Individuals. J. Bone Jt. Surg. 1915, 2, 413–414. [Google Scholar]
  46. Bizarro, A.H. On Sesamoid and Supernumerary Bones of the Limbs. J. Anat. 1921, 55, 256–268. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  47. Offenbecker, A.M.; Case, D.T. Accessory Navicular: A Heritable Accessory Bone of the Human Foot. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol. 2012, 22, 158–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Burnett, S.E. Developmental Variation in South African Bantu: Variant Co-Occurrence and Skeletal Asymmetry; Arizona State University: Tempe, AZ, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  49. Mygind, H.B. The Accessory Tarsal Scaphoid: Clinical Features and Treatment. Acta Orthop. 1953, 23, 142–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Mosel, L.D.; Kat, E.; Voyvodic, F. Imaging of the Symptomatic Type II Accessory Navicular Bone. Australas. Radiol. 2004, 48, 267–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Shands, A.R.; Wentz, I.J. Congenital Anomalies, Accessory Bones, and Osteochondritis in the Feet of 850 Children. Surg. Clin. N. Am. 1953, 33, 1643–1666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Gruber, W. Vorläufige Mittheilung Über Die Secundären Fusswurzelknochen Des Menschen. Arch. Anat. Physiol. Wiss. Med. 1864, 31, 286–290. [Google Scholar]
  53. Case, D.T.; Ossenberg, N.S.; Burnett, S.E. Os Intermetatarseum: A Heritable Accessory Bone of the Human Foot. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 1998, 107, 199–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Osteology 06 00005 g001
Figure 1. Inferior view of the left and right talus of a female individual (CISC/XXI29) with os trigonum. The left bone exhibits a fused ossicle, while the right presents a free ossicle.
Figure 1. Inferior view of the left and right talus of a female individual (CISC/XXI29) with os trigonum. The left bone exhibits a fused ossicle, while the right presents a free ossicle.
Osteology 06 00005 g001
Osteology 06 00005 g002
Figure 2. Inferior view of the left and right talus of a female individual (CISC/XXI/299) illustrating bilateral, fused, os trigonum.
Figure 2. Inferior view of the left and right talus of a female individual (CISC/XXI/299) illustrating bilateral, fused, os trigonum.
Osteology 06 00005 g002
Osteology 06 00005 g003
Figure 3. Inferior view of the left talus of a female individual (CISC/XXI/59) with unilateral fusion of os trigonum. Note the fusion line in the close-up.
Figure 3. Inferior view of the left talus of a female individual (CISC/XXI/59) with unilateral fusion of os trigonum. Note the fusion line in the close-up.
Osteology 06 00005 g003
Osteology 06 00005 g004
Figure 4. (a,b) Inferior views of the right talus of a male individual (CISC/XXI/114) with the ossicle free; (c) Infero-medial view. Note the triangular shape. (d) The free os trigonum.
Figure 4. (a,b) Inferior views of the right talus of a male individual (CISC/XXI/114) with the ossicle free; (c) Infero-medial view. Note the triangular shape. (d) The free os trigonum.
Osteology 06 00005 g004
Osteology 06 00005 g005
Figure 5. Bilateral case of calcaneum secundarium in a male individual (CISC/XXI/109). Detailed view of the anteromedial aspect of the calcaneus. Note that the anterior and medial facets are continuous.
Figure 5. Bilateral case of calcaneum secundarium in a male individual (CISC/XXI/109). Detailed view of the anteromedial aspect of the calcaneus. Note that the anterior and medial facets are continuous.
Osteology 06 00005 g005
Osteology 06 00005 g006
Figure 6. Superior view of the right calcaneus of a male individual (CISC/XXI/252). The anterior and medial facets are separated.
Figure 6. Superior view of the right calcaneus of a male individual (CISC/XXI/252). The anterior and medial facets are separated.
Osteology 06 00005 g006
Osteology 06 00005 g007
Figure 7. Right navicular bone of a male individual (CISC/XXI/72), showing a unilateral case of Type II accessory navicular bone. On the close-up (left), note the flattened and porous surfaces of the bone.
Figure 7. Right navicular bone of a male individual (CISC/XXI/72), showing a unilateral case of Type II accessory navicular bone. On the close-up (left), note the flattened and porous surfaces of the bone.
Osteology 06 00005 g007
Osteology 06 00005 g008
Figure 8. Distal and proximal view of the left medial cuneiform of a male individual (CISC/XXI/14) with a fused os intermetatarseum.
Figure 8. Distal and proximal view of the left medial cuneiform of a male individual (CISC/XXI/14) with a fused os intermetatarseum.
Osteology 06 00005 g008
Osteology 06 00005 g009
Figure 9. Proximal view of the second right metatarsal of a male individual (CISC/XXI/58), showing the presence of a fused os intermetatarseum.
Figure 9. Proximal view of the second right metatarsal of a male individual (CISC/XXI/58), showing the presence of a fused os intermetatarseum.
Osteology 06 00005 g009
Table 1. Prevalence of foot ossicles per individual in the CISC/XXI sample (n: individuals with foot ossicles, N: sample size).
Table 1. Prevalence of foot ossicles per individual in the CISC/XXI sample (n: individuals with foot ossicles, N: sample size).
FemalesMalesTotal
Prevalencen/NPrevalencen/NPrevalencen/N
Os trigonum8.57/8210.08/809.315/162
Calcaneum secundarium3.83/8010.18/796.911/159
Accessory navicular bone0.00/801.31/800.61/160
Os sustentaculum0.00/800.00/800.00/160
Os vesalianum1.31/800.00/790.61/159
Os intermetatarseum2.52/796.65/764.57/155
Table 2. Prevalence of foot ossicles in the CISC/XXI sample (left foot; n: individuals with foot ossicles, N: sample size).
Table 2. Prevalence of foot ossicles in the CISC/XXI sample (left foot; n: individuals with foot ossicles, N: sample size).
FemalesMalesTotal
Prevalencen/NPrevalencen/NPrevalencen/N
Os trigonum6.35/798.06/757.111/154
Calcaneum secundarium1.31/775.24/773.25/154
Accessory navicular bone0.00/740.00/690.00/143
Os sustentaculum0.00/760.00/770.00/153
Os vesalianum0.00/730.00/700.00/143
Os intermetatarseum2.72/732.92/702.84/143
Table 3. Prevalence of foot in the CISC/XXI sample (right foot; n: individuals with foot ossicles, N: sample size).
Table 3. Prevalence of foot in the CISC/XXI sample (right foot; n: individuals with foot ossicles, N: sample size).
FemalesMalesTotal
Prevalencen/NPrevalencen/NPrevalencen/N
Os trigonum6.45/785.25/776.510/155
Calcaneum secundarium3.83/787.86/775.89/155
Accessory navicular bone0.00/741.31/760.71/150
Os sustentaculum0.00/800.00/800.00/160
Os vesalianum1.31/800.00/790.61/159
Os intermetatarseum2.52/796.65/764.57/155
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sambú, L.; Curate, F.; Silva, A.M. Stepping Up: Accessory Bones of the Foot in the 21st Century Identified Skeletal Collection (Portugal). Osteology 2026, 6, 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/osteology6010005

AMA Style

Sambú L, Curate F, Silva AM. Stepping Up: Accessory Bones of the Foot in the 21st Century Identified Skeletal Collection (Portugal). Osteology. 2026; 6(1):5. https://doi.org/10.3390/osteology6010005

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sambú, Larisa, Francisco Curate, and Ana Maria Silva. 2026. "Stepping Up: Accessory Bones of the Foot in the 21st Century Identified Skeletal Collection (Portugal)" Osteology 6, no. 1: 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/osteology6010005

APA Style

Sambú, L., Curate, F., & Silva, A. M. (2026). Stepping Up: Accessory Bones of the Foot in the 21st Century Identified Skeletal Collection (Portugal). Osteology, 6(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/osteology6010005

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop