case_images: PMC6157136_01
case_images: X-ray of the hind foot, lateral view, showing a 1.8 cm accessory posterior bone fragment (arrow).
case_images: CRIOR2018-2737982.001.jpg
case_images: PMC6157136_01_CRIOR2018-2737982.001.jpg
case_images: fig1
case_images: Initial plain radiographs showed a considerable (1.8 cm) posterior bone fragment in relation with the talus (Figure 1).
case_images: Comparative CT scan showing posterior bone process, displacing into the medial side (arrow) in both coronal (a) and axial (b) view.
case_images: CRIOR2018-2737982.002.jpg
case_images: PMC6157136_01_CRIOR2018-2737982.002.jpg
case_images: fig2
case_images: At this point, talus bipartitus (TB) diagnosis was suspected (Figure 2).
case_images: MRI, sagittal view of the ankle; the presence of cartilage between the talar body and the accessory bone can be appreciated (stars).
case_images: CRIOR2018-2737982.003.jpg
case_images: PMC6157136_01_CRIOR2018-2737982.003.jpg
case_images: fig3
case_images: MRI disclosed the presence of an inflammatory process, bone fragment covered with cartilage, and what appears to be a degenerative synchondrosis as a consequence of posteromedial impingement (Figure 3).
case_images: Medial approach with exposure of the pseudoarticular space (star), tibialis posterior retracted forward (yellow arrow), and the accessory bone fragment (white arrow).
case_images: CRIOR2018-2737982.004.jpg
case_images: PMC6157136_01_CRIOR2018-2737982.004.jpg
case_images: fig4
case_images: The bone fragment was removed and the tunnel was released (Figure 4).
case_images: Comparative preoperative (a) and postoperative X-rays with no residual bone (b).
case_images: CRIOR2018-2737982.005.jpg
case_images: PMC6157136_01_CRIOR2018-2737982.005.jpg
case_images: fig5
case_images: Postoperative radiographs showed the complete absence of residual bone fragment (Figure 5).