The management of penetrating abdominal wounds is always debated, especially with regard to the stable and asymptomatic patients. Objectives: To analyze the results of the various behaviors suggested by the literature and adopted in our context, and evaluate the feasibility of the observation known as “selective conservatism” for the abdominal or abdomino-thoracic penetrating wounds. Patients and Methodology: Prospective study, concerning 106 patients (Sex ratio of 20,2 Mid Age of 26,2 years), observed from 01.01.2007 to 01.31.2009 at the Department of General Surgery of the Hôpital de la Liberté in N’djamena, for penetrating abdominal or abdomino-thoracic wounds by knife or firearms. The patients were distributed into three groups. A Group: patients operated on immediately. B Group, patients subjected to an observation in surgical ward. C Group: patients subjected to secondary laparotomy after a period of observation. The forecast, the rate of negative laparotomies, duration of the hospital stay, and the complications were compared by using the Khi 2 Test. Results: On 106 patients, 95 (89, 62%) were wounded by knife and 11 (11,38%) by a firearm. The A Group has included 57 immediately operated on patients (53,8%) (13 for shock, 29 eviscerations and 15 for peritonitis). The B group was composed by 24 patients (22,6%), including 18 patients with omentum evisceration. The time of observation varied from 48 to 96 hours, with an average of 75,75h. The C group included 25 patients (23,6%). The total rate of negative laparotomies was of 13, 4%, that of the patientssubjected to observation and then operated on was of 3,7% (p=0,803). The average stay was 10, 56 days for the A Group ; 3,5 forthe B Group and 12,96 forthe C Group, with differences by confronting Groupe A vs B, and B vs C (p=0,0001). The postoperative complications (15,1%) included 8 patients of the A Group, 3 of the B Group, and 3 of the C Group (p=0,724). Mortality rate was 4,7% concerning 4 patients of the A Group, and 1 patient of the B Group (p=0,389). Conclusion: The practice ofselective conservatism isfeasible in our context; it is constraining in human and material means, and even if our cases are very few, there is a real benefit to avoid negative laparotomies, without compromising the vital prognosis of the casualties.