The increased use of CT scans has greatly improved our ability to detect perforation. GSK126 clinical trial Suspicious findings on CT scan include unexplained intraperitoneal fluid, pneumoperitoneum, bowel wall thickening, mesenteric fat streaking, mesenteric hematoma and extravasation of contrast. However, up to 12% of patients with traumatic

perforations may have a normal CT scan. Adding oral contrast and performing triple contrast CT scan may improve diagnostic sensitivity and specifity [39, 40]. In the setting of trauma, diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL) has essentially been replaced by the focused assessment by sonography for trauma (FAST), which lacks specificity for hollow organ perforation [41, 42]. Victims of penetrating trauma with signs of peritonitis require surgical exploration without further diagnostic workup. In blunt trauma patients, and in penetrating trauma patients without peritonitis, in whom the trajectory of the missile may be unclear, CT scanning of the abdomen and pelvis with oral and intravenous contrast remains the diagnostic gold standard. We suggest Erect CXR as initial routine diagnostic assessment in case of acute abdomen from suspected

free perforation of PU. In case of negative AXR and/or erect CXR, we suggest CT scan as second level diagnostic tool since its higher sensitivity in detecting intra-abdominal free air. In case of negative findings of free intra-abdominal air and persistent suspicion of PPU, we suggest adding Seliciclib cell line oral water soluble contrast or via NGT. Treatment Fluorometholone Acetate Non operative management Crofts TJ et al. in 1989 conducted a prospective randomized trial comparing the outcome of nonoperative treatment with that of emergency surgery in patients with a clinical diagnosis of perforated peptic ulcer. Of the 83 patients entered in the study over a 13-month period, 40 were randomly assigned to conservative treatment, which consisted of resuscitation with intravenous fluids, institution of nasogastric click here suction,

and intravenous administration of antibiotics and ranitidine. Eleven of these patients (28 percent) had no clinical improvement after 12 hours and required an operation. Two of the 11 had a perforated gastric carcinoma, and 1 had a perforated sigmoid carcinoma. The other 43 patients were assigned to immediate laparotomy and repair of the perforation. The overall mortality rates in the two groups were similar (two deaths in each, 5 percent), and did not differ significantly in the morbidity rates (40 percent in the surgical group and 50 percent in the nonsurgical group). They concluded that in patients with perforated peptic ulcer, an initial period of nonoperative treatment with careful observation may be safely allowed except in patients over 70 years old, and that the use of such an observation period can obviate the need for emergency surgery in more than 70 percent of patients [43]. Songne B et al.