Open Access Highly Accessed Case report

Muscular cystic hydatidosis: case report

Sonia Vicidomini1, Gabriella Cancrini2, Simona Gabrielli2, Riccardo Naspetti3 and Alessandro Bartoloni1*

Author Affiliations

1 Malattie Infettive e Tropicali, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Viale Morgagni 85, 50134 Florence, Italy

2 Dipartimento di Scienze di Sanità Pubblica, Università "La Sapienza", P.le Aldo Moro 5, 00185 Rome, Italy

3 Chirurgia Generale 3, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi Viale Morgagni 85, 50134 Florence, Italy

For all author emails, please log on.

BMC Infectious Diseases 2007, 7:23  doi:10.1186/1471-2334-7-23

Published: 30 March 2007

Abstract

Background

Hydatidosis is a zoonosis caused by Echinococcus granulosus, and ingesting eggs released through the faeces from infected dogs infects humans. The location of the hydatid cysts is mostly hepatic and/or pulmonary, whereas musculoskeletal hydatidosis is very rare.

Case presentation

We report an unusual case of primary muscular hydatidosis in proximity of the big adductor in a young Sicilian man. The patient, 34 years old, was admitted to the Department of Infectious and Tropical Diseases for ultrasonographic detection, with successive confirmation by magnetic resonance imaging, of an ovular mass (13 × 8 cm) in the big adductor of the left thigh, cyst-like, and containing several small cystic formations. Serological tests for hydatidosis gave negative results. A second drawing of blood was done 10 days after the first one and showed an increase in the antibody titer for hydatidosis. The patient was submitted to surgical excision of the lesion with perioperatory prophylaxis with albendazole. The histopathological examination of the bioptic material was not diriment in the diagnosis, therefore further tests were performed: additional serological tests for hydatidosis for the evaluation of IgE and IgG serotype (Western Blot and REAST), and molecular analysis of the excised material. These more specific serological tests gave positive results for hydatidosis, and the sequencing of the polymerase chain reaction products from the cyst evidenced E. granulosus DNA, genotype G1. Any post-surgery complications was observed during 6 following months.

Conclusion

Cystic hydatidosis should always be considered in the differential diagnosis of any cystic mass, regardless of its location, also in epidemiological contests less suggestive of the disease. The diagnosis should be achieved by taking into consideration the clinical aspects, the epidemiology of the disease, the imaging and immunological tests but, as demonstrated in this case, without neglecting the numerous possibilities offered by new serological devices and modern day molecular biology techniques.