Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 281, Issue 6, pp 1015–1017 | Cite as

Morgagni hydatids: a new factor in infertility?

  • Fatma Bahar Cebesoy
  • Irfan Kutlar
  • Ebru Dikensoy
  • Caglar Yazicioglu
  • Hakan Kalayci
General Gynecology



To evaluate the effect of Morgagni hydatid (MH) on infertility by comparing women known to be fertile and infertile with respect to MH frequency.


The study was conducted in Gaziantep University Faculty of Medicine with the precipitation of total 455 patients. The 240 of them were pregnant to whom planned cesarean section (C/S) and the other 215 were infertile one who have undergone diagnostic laparoscopy. Fertile Group (Group 1) consisted of women whom have become spontaneously pregnant without any kind of infertility management. These are planned to undergo C/S with different indications. Infertile group (Group 2) consisted of women diagnosed as unexplained infertility and planned to undergo diagnostic laparoscopy according to ASRM 2006 guidelines. The frequency, number, and the bilaterality of the MH were evaluated during the C/S in fertile group and diagnostic laparoscopy in infertile group. SPSS was used for statistical analyses.


The MH frequency was higher in Group 2 than Group 1 (P < 0.05). The bilaterality of MHs were significantly higher in Group 2 than Group 1 (P < 0.05).The number of the MHs were significantly higher in Group 2 than Group 1 (P < 0.05).


These findings suggest a possible effect of MH on fertility. The theory of MH disturbing tubal motility with respect to the pick-up and transport of ovum appears logical in this aspect.


Hydatid of Morgagni Infertility Tubal motility 


Conflict of interest statement



  1. 1.
    The Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (2006) Effectiveness and treatment for unexplained infertility. Fertil Steril 86:111–114Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Perlman S, Hertweck P, Fallat ME (2005) Paratubal and tubal abnormalities. Semin Pediatr Surg 14:124–134CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wittich AC (2002) Hydatid of Morgagni with torsion diagnosed during cesarean delivery: a case report. J Reprod Med 47:680–682PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rizk DE, Lakshminarasimha B, Joshi S (2002) Torsion of the fallopian tube in an adolescent female: a case report. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 15:159–161CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dieminger HJ, Friebel L, Bethmann R (1985) Primary cancer of a Morgagni hydatid. Zentralbl Gynakol 107:442–445PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    The Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (2006) Optimal evaluation of the infertile female. Fertil Steril 86:264–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sunoo CS, Terada KY, Kamemoto LE, Hale RW (1990) Adnexal masses in pregnancy: occurrence by ethnic group. Obstet Gynecol 75:38–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pansky M, Smorgick N, Lotan G, Herman A, Schneider D, Halperin R (2006) Adnexal torsion involving hydatids of Morgagni: a rare cause of acute abdominal pain in adolescents. Obstet Gynecol 108:100–102PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fatma Bahar Cebesoy
    • 1
  • Irfan Kutlar
    • 1
  • Ebru Dikensoy
    • 1
  • Caglar Yazicioglu
    • 1
  • Hakan Kalayci
    • 1
  1. 1.Obstetric and Gynecology Department, Faculty of MedicineGaziantep UniversityGaziantepTurkey

Personalised recommendations