Objective: To determine the clinical, radiological and surgical features of
retrovesical, retroperitoneal hydatid cyst and to discuss the aetiology an
d pathogenesis.
Material and Methods: Nine cases of hydatid cyst operated in the urology de
partment of Charles Nicolle hospital in Tunis between 1982 and 1998 were re
viewed: five retroperitoneal sites and 4 retrovesical sites.
Results: Retrovesical and retroperitoneal sites represent about 10% of all
operations for hydatid cyst in our department. The mean age of our patients
was 49.8 years. The clinical presentation was dominated by voiding disorde
rs in the cases of retrovesical hydatid cyst (4 cases) and the appearance o
f a lumbar or abdominal mass with or without associated abdominal pain in t
he cases of retroperitoneal hydatid cyst (5 cases). The positive diagnosis
was based on abdominopelvic ultrasonography, completed by computed tomograp
hy in 3 patients. All patients were treated by wide cyst resection with a f
avourable course and no recurrence.
Conclusion: Retrovesical and retroperitoneal hydatid cysts are rare, but no
t exceptional in a country with a high endemic rate, such as Tunisia. The d
iagnosis can be confirmed by radiological investigations. Implantation of t
he hydatid larva is essentially haematogenous. However secondary implantati
on in the pouch of Douglas of protoscolex derived from rupture of an intrap
eritoneal cyst can also be responsible for some retrovesical sites.