Ear Trimming - Kelompok 1 - Kelas D

TUGAS ILMU BEDAH KHUSUS VETERINER
“TEKNIK OPERASI EAR TRIMMING PADA ANJING”
Oleh :
Kelompok 1, Kelas 2016 D
A. A. Gd. A. Wahyu Maha Putra 1509005014
Lilik Dwi Mariyana 1609511027
Ni Komang Valerie Suriana 1609511030
Putu Risma Oktaviandari 1609511031
Ni Luh Putu Nadia Apsari 1609511032
Ni Putu Sri Ayu Astini 1609511034
FAKULTAS KEDOKTERAN HEWAN

UNIVERSITAS UDAYANA
DENPASAR
2019
i
RINGKASAN
Seiring dengan berkembangnya teknologi dan ilmu pengetahuan, trend dari

bedah kosmetik semakin banyak diminati. Tidak hanya pada manusia, bedah
kosmetik juga dapat dilakukan pada hewan. Ear trimming adalah salah satu
prosedur pembedahan yang tergolong dalam bedah komestika. Ear trimming
merupakan proses pembedahan atau pengambilan sebagian dari daun telinga seekor
hewan yang bertujuan untuk memperindah penampilan. Telinga merupakan alat
penerima gelombang suara yang selanjutnya akan diteruskan berupa impuls ke
dalam korteks pendengaran melalui saraf pendengaran. Salah satu jenis hewan yang
dapat dilakukan bedah kosmetik adalah anjing. Dalam pembedahan Ear trimming
perlu diperhatikan beberapa hal, seperti manajemen pre-operasi, teknik operasi, dan
manajemen pasca operasi. Teknik operasi dari Ear trimming, memiliki metode yang
berbeda-beda, contohnya seperti dengan Free Hand Method, Jensen Ear Clamp, dan
Mac Allan Ear Trimming Clamps.
Kata kunci : bedah kosmetik, telinga, teknik operasi, ear trimming, anjing.
ii
SUMMARY
As technology and science develop, the trends of cosmetic surgery are

increasingly in demand. Not only in humans, cosmetic surgery can also be done on
animals. Ear trimming is one of the surgical procedures classified as cosmetic
surgery. Ear trimming is the process of surgery or taking part of the earlobe of an
animal that aims to beautify the appearance. The ear is a sound wave receptor which
will then be transmitted in the form of impulses into the auditory cortex through the
auditory nerve. One type of animal that can be done cosmetic surgery is a dog. In
Ear trimming surgery, several things need to be considered, such as pre-surgery
management, surgery techniques, and post-surgery management. The operating
technique of Ear trimming, has many different methods, for example such as the
Free Hand Method, Jensen Ear Clamp, and Mac Allan Ear Trimming Clamps.
Keywords: cosmetic surgery, ear, surgery techniques, ear trimming, dogs.
iii
KATA PENGANTAR
Puji syukur kami panjatkan kepada Tuhan Yang Maha Esa karena atas berkat
dan rahmat-Nyalah makalah yang berjudul “Teknik Operasi Ear Trimming pada
Anjing” dapat diselesaikan dengan baik dan tepat waktu.
Tulisan ini dibuat untuk memenuhi tugas dari mata kuliah Ilmu Bedah Khusus
Veteriner, Fakultas Kedokteran Hewan, Universitas Udayana. Pada kesempatan ini,
kami ingin mengucapkan terima kasih kepada :
1. Dr. drh. I Gusti Ngurah Sudisma, M.Si, selaku ketua dosen pengampu mata
kuliah Ilmu Bedah Khusus Veteriner, Fakultas Kedokteran Hewan,
Universitas Udayana yang telah membimbing selama proses perkuliahan
berlangsung.
2. Dosen-dosen pengampu mata kuliah Ilmu Bedah Khusus Veteriner,
Fakultas Kedokteran Hewan, Universitas Udayana yang telah membimbing
selama proses perkuliahan berlangsung.
3. Semua pihak yang telah membantu dalam proses pengerjaan makalah ini.
Kami menyadari bahwa makalah ini masih jauh dari kata sempurna. Oleh
karena itu, segala kritik dan saran sangat kami harapkan demi kebaikan dari
makalah ini serta makalah selanjutnya yang akan dibuat.
Denpasar, 12 September 2019

Hormat kami,
Penulis
iv
DAFTAR ISI
Halaman Judul i
Ringkasan ii
Summary iii
Kata Pengantar iv
Daftar Isi v
Daftar Gambar vi
Daftar Lampiran vii
BAB I. PENDAHULUAN 1
1.1 Latar Belakang 1
1.2 Rumusan Masalah 2
BAB II. TUJUAN DAN MANFAAT PENULISAN 3

2.1 Tujuan Penelitian 3
2.2 Manfaat Penelitian 3
2.2.1 Manfaat teoritis 3
2.2.2 Manfaat praktis 3
BAB III. TINJAUAN PUSTAKA 4

3.1 Anatomi Fisiologi Telinga Anjing 4
3.2 Definisi dan Fungsi Ear Trimming pada Anjing ............ 6
BAB IV. PEMBAHASAN 8

4.1 Manajemen Pra-Operation Ear Trimming ...................... 8
4.1.1 Persiapan Ruang Operasi ...................................... 8
4.1.2 Persiapan Alat dan Bahan Operasi ....................... 9
4.1.3 Persiapan Hewan yang akan Dioperasi ................. 9
4.1.4 Persiapan Operator dan Co-Operator.................... 10
4.2 Teknik Operasi Ear Trimming ........................................ 10
4.3 Perawatan Pasca Operasi Ear Trimming ......................... 12
BAB V. PENUTUP 13
5.1 Kesimpulan...................................................................... 13
5.2 Saran ................................................................................ 13
DAFTAR PUSTAKA
LAMPIRAN
v
DAFTAR GAMBAR
Gambar 3.1 Diagram Skematis Telinga Luar, Tengah, dan Internal

Anjing .......................................................................... 4
Gambar 3.2 Anjing yang Melakukan Ear Trimming ....................... 6
Gambar 4.1 Proses Ear Trimming.................................................... 10
Gambar 4.2 Penggunaan Elizabeth Collar Pasca Operasi ............... 12
vi
DAFTAR LAMPIRAN
1. Njaa, B.L., Cole L.K., Tabacca N. 2012. Practical Otic Anatomy and
Physiology of the Dog and Cat. Vet Clin Small Anim 42: 1109-1126
2. Sinmez CC, Yasar A. 2013. Turkish Shepherd Dog Kangal In Sivas
Folklore. J World Turks 5:193–214.
3. Mills, K.E.,Robbins J., Keyserlingk M.A.G. 2016. Tail Docking and Ear
Cropping Dogs: Public Awarenessand Perceptions. PLoS ONE 11(6):
e0158131.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0158
vii
1
BAB I
PENDAHULUAN
1.1 Latar Belakang

Telinga merupakan organ yang mampu mendeteksi suara atau mengenal
suara sekaligus sebagai organ keseimbangan tubuh. Pada hewan vertebrata,
telinga juga berfungsi untuk menangkap suara dan sebagai alat komunikasi
dengan sesamanya. Telinga pada hewan vertebrata memiliki dasar yang sama,
dengan beberapa variasi sesuai dengan fungsi dan spesies.
Setiap vertebrata memiliki satu pasang telinga, satu sama lainnya terletak
simetris pada bagian yang berlawanan di kepala, untuk menjaga keseimbangan
dan lokalisasi suara. Suara adalah bentuk energi yang bergerak melewati udara,
air, atau benda lainnya, dalam sebuah gelombang. Walaupun telinga yang
mendeteksi suara, fungsi pengenalan dan interpretasi dilakukan
di otak dan sistem saraf pusat. Rangsangan suara disampaikan ke otak melalui
saraf yang menyambungkan telinga dan otak (nervus vestibulokoklearis).
Dewasa ini, dalam hal mempercantik banyak dilakukan opersasi yang
sifatnya mementingkan nilai estetika. Tidak hanya pada manusia,
berkembangnya jaman dan semakin majunya teknologi membuat operasi
kecantikan dilakukan pula pada hewan terutama hewan kesayangan. Operasi
ini contohnya operasi potong telinga (ear trimming). Ear trimming adalah salah
satu pembedahan yang dilakukan pada hewan kesayangan terutama anjing
dengan memotong sebagian dari daun telinga yag tujuannya untuk
mempercantik penampilan (bedah kosmetika).
Kebiasaan ear trimming muncul di antara masyarakat Turki awal
(Yilmaz 2013). Situasi di Turki tidak berbeda dari daerah lain, terutama
pemilik anjing dan peternak anjing Turkish Kangal Shepherd yang memotong
telinga hewan-hewan mereka untuk mencegah serangan serigala atau berkelahi
dengan anjing lain yang menyebabkan telinga dicengkeram. Selain itu, pemilik
juga percaya bahwa telinga panjang cenderung terluka oleh tali besi berduri
atau dapat mengurangi kemampuan mendengar. Akhirnya, penampilan estetika
tradisional dijamin dengan ear trimming (Sinmez & Yasar 2013). Ear trimming
1
2
adalah masalah sosial yang kompleks yang melibatkan aspek ekonomi,

estetika, kesejahteraan dan moral (Bennett & Perini, 2003).
Berdasarkan hal tersebut penulis mengulas mengenai teknik operasi pada
kasus Ear trimming, yang penulis tuangkan melalui makalah yang berjudul
“Teknik Operasi Ear Trimming”.
1.2 Rumusan Masalah

Berdasarkan latar belakang yang telah dijabarkan, maka diperoleh
rumusan masalah sebagai berikut:
1.2.1 Bagaimana prosedur pre operasi dan anestesi pada operasi ear
trimming?
1.2.2 Bagaimana prosedur operasi ear trimming?
1.2.3 Bagaimana hasil dan pasca operasi ear trimming?
3
BAB II
TUJUAN DAN MANFAAT PENULISAN
2.1 Tujuan Penulisan

Berdasarkan rumusan masalah, maka diperoleh tujuan penulisan sebagai
berikut:
2.1.1 Untuk mengetahui prosedur pre operasi dan anestesi pada operasi
ear trimming.
2.1.2 Untuk mengetahui prosedur operasi ear trimming.
2.1.3 Untuk mengetahui hasil dan pasca operasi ear trimming.
2.2 Manfaat Penulisan

Berdasarkan tujuan penulisan diatas, maka manfaat yang diperoleh dari
penulisan paper ini adalah sebagai berikut:
2.2.1 Manfaat teoritis
Penulis mengharapkan makalah ini dapat memberikan manfaat
bagi pembaca untuk memahami dan mengerti mengenai teknik operasi
ear trimming pada hewan serta dapat menjadi bahan bacaan untuk
matakuliah Ilmu Bedah Khusus Veteriner.
2.2.2 Manfaat praktis

Praktis pembuatan makalah ini dapat memberikan manfaat bagi
penulis yaitu dapat menambah wawasan mengenai operasi ear trimming
pada hewan.
3
4
BAB III
TINJAUAN PUSTAKA
3.1 Anatomi Fisiologis Telinga Anjing

Telinga adalah alat penerima gelombang suara atau gelombang udara
kemudian gelombang mekanik ini diubah menjadi impuls pulsa listrik dan
diteruskan ke korteks pendengaran melalui saraf pendengaran. Telinga
merupakan organ pendengaran dan keseimbangan. Pada anjing, indra
pendengaran merupakan indra yang paling tajam pada anjing. Keistimewaan
anjing adalah anjing dapat mendengar dengan jelas suara yang tidak bisa kita
dengar termasuk suara dengan frekuensi yang sangat rendah dan sangat tinggi.
Telinga anjing memiliki ukuran dan bentuk yang beranekaragam, dan dapat
digerakkan sesuai dengan keinginannya (Debra, 2007). Telinga dapat dibagi
menjadi tiga bagian yaitu: telinga luar, telinga tengah, dan telinga dalam.
Gambar 3.1 Diagram Skematis Telinga Luar, Tengah, dan Internal Anjing. (A)
Penampang melalui tengkorak. (B) Tampilan dekat telinga tengah dan internal
yang diuraikan dalam kotak biru
(Sumber: Cole, 2009)
Telinga luar terdiri dari daun telinga (pinna), saluran telinga (canalis
auditorius externus) dan pada ujung terdapat gendang telinga (membrane
timpani). Pada anjing konformasi pada pinna dapat tegak maupun terjumpai.
Pinna memainkan peran penting dalam lokalisasi suara dan juga
mengumpulkan gelombang suara dan mengirimkannya ke membran timpani.
4
5
Pinna terdiri dari tulang rawan aurikularis yang ditutupi di kedua sisi oleh kulit
berambut lengkap dengan kelenjar keringat apokrin, kelenjar sebaceous, dan
folikel rambut. Permukaan cembung pinna memiliki lebih banyak folikel
rambut per satuan luas daripada permukaan cekung yang lebih tipis. Otot-otot
bertindak untuk menggerakkan telinga ke arah tertentu (Calhoun, 1987 dalam
Njaa et al, 2012). Gelombang suara akan diteuskan melalui lubang telinga.
Lubang telinga akan turun secara vertikal dan kemudian berbelok secara
horizontal sampai pada gendang telinga (membran timpani) (Debra, 2007).
Telinga tengah atau rongga timpani adalah bilik kecil yang mengandung
udara. Dalam telinga tengah bagian yang paling utama adalah osikulus, yang
terdiri dari: maleus, inkus, stapes. Getaran suara yang diterima oleh gendnag
telinga akan disampaikan ke tulang pendengaran. Setiap tulang pendengaran
akan menyampaikan getaran ke tulang berikutnya. Tulang stapes yang
merupakan tulang terkecil di tubuh meneruskan getaran ke koklea. Pinggir tuba
eustachius juga termasuk dalam telinga tengah. Tuba eustachius
menghubungkan ruangan pada telinga tengah ke kerongkongan Fungsi dari
saluran ini untuk menyeimbangkan tekanan udara pada kedua sisi gendang
telinga (Debra, 2007).
Telinga dalam terdapat dua fungsional yaitu sistem pendengaran dan
sistem vestibular. Bagian telinga internal sistem pendengaran terdiri dari
koklea dan cabang koklea yang terkait dengan saraf vestibulocochlear dan
hubungannya dengan sistem saraf pusat. Koklea bertugas sebagai reseptor
suara, memiliki cairan didalamnya yang dapat mengubah getaran tadi menjadi
gelombang cairan yang nantinya berubah menjadi impuls saraf. Pada sekitar
tulang-tulang pendengaran terdapat pula apparatus vestibular, yang memiliki
fungsi sebagai penyinkron antara gerakan mata dengan keseimbangan, postur
tubuh, dan koordinasi. Saraf pada vestibular menghubungkan antara saraf
pendengaran dengan pusat keseimbangan di otak. Sistem vestibular terdiri dari
beberapa kompartemen yang dipenuhi cairan, berlapis epitel (saccule, utricle,
dan kanal setengah lingkaran), yang secara terus menerus memberikan input
ke otak mengenai orientasi kepala dan tubuh serta arah dan kecepatan gerakan
(Connors, 2005 dalam Njaa et al., 2012).
6
3.2 Definisi dan Fungsi Ear Trimming pada Anjing

Ear trimming adalah salah satu prosedur pembedahan yang tergolong
dalam bedah komestika. Ear trimming merupakan proses pembedahan atau
pengambilan sebagian dari daun telinga seekor hewan yang bertujuan untuk
memperindah penampilan. Terdapat beberapa hal yang harus diperhatikan
dalam melakukan ear trimming, yaitu ras hewan, postur tubuh, jenis kelamin,
dan umur hewan. Jenis breed anjing yang umumnya melakukan ear trimming
adalah Boxer, Doberman, Great Dane, Schnauzer, Miniatur Pinscher dan Fox
Terrier. Anjing jenis boxer dilakukan ear trimming pada umur 9-10 minggu,
anjing Doberman 7-8 minggu, dan anjing Great Dane umur 7 minggu dengan
ukuran panjang telinga 2,5 inchi (Sudisma et al., 2006).
Gambar 3.2 Anjing yang Melakukan Ear Trimming

(Sumber: http://www.gentryboxers.com)
Pembedahan ear trimming ini banyak menuai kontroversi karena

dianggap melanggar animal welfare (Mills, 2016). Namun, ear trimming
umumnya dilakukan dengan tujuan sebagai berikut:
a. Kebutuhan Keindahan (Kosmetik)
Beberapa trah anjing seperti Dobermann, Miniature Pincher, dan lain-
lain akan lebih indah dilihat jika daun telinga mereka dibuang sedikit. Daun
telinga yang sebelumnya turun dan terlalu besar ukurannya akan menjadi
berdiri tegak dan bentuknya lebih indah. Sehingga bentuk kepala akan lebih
terlihat jelas.
b. Kebutuhan Fungsi
7
Ear trimming dilakukan untuk beberapa trah anjing seperti

Dobermann, American Pit Bull Terrier, Boxer, Dogo Argentino, dan lain -
lain untuk mempertegas wajah seramnya, dan mencegah luka pada telinga
jika berkelahi. Ear trimming akan memberikan raut wajah yang lebih seram
kepada jenis-jenis anjing penjaga seperti Boxer dan Dobermann. Hal
tersebut akan psikiologi musuh yang dihadapi.
c. Kesehatan
Anjing dengan ear trimming umumnya memiliki kondisi telinga yang
lebih bersih dan kering. Hal tersebut dapat mengurangi kemungkinan
terinfeksinya telinga oleh parasite atau jenis infeksi lainnya. Ear trimming
juga dikatkan mampu meningkatkan fungsi pendengaran telinga.
8
BAB IV
PEMBAHASAN
Prosedur bedah kosmetik dalam dunia veteriner dilakukan dengan dua tujuan
yaitu sebagai estetika untuk menampilkan hewan kesayangan sesuai standart ras
hewan dan memberikan penampilan yang berbeda dari hewan lain, serta tujuan
terapeutik sebagai tindakan operatif terapeutik bagi hewan pasca kecelakaan atau
cedera permanen. Salah satu bedah kosmetik yang banyak dilakukan saat ini adalah
ear trimming. Ear trimming umumnya dilakukan untuk kepentingan kosmetik atau
keindahan pada anjing dan dapat pula dilakukan karena adanya lesi pada daun
telinga. Sebelum dilakukannya ear trimming, dokter hewan harus terampil dengan
bentuk pemotongan daun telinga untuk setiap anjing. Hasil pemotongan telinga
yang baik akan terlihat alami pada anjing dan telinga bebas dari jaringan parut serta
memiliki pinggiran yang halus daripada sudut yang menonjol. Agar dapat
melakukan ear trimming dengan hasil yang baik. Maka, ada beberapa hal-hal yang
perlu diperhatikan seperti umur anjing, panjang dan bentuk telinga disesuaikan
dengan bangsa, bentuk tubuh, jenis kelamin dan umur anjing (Sudisma, 2016).
Menurut Schipper (1970), umur yang layak untuk ear trimming pada anjing
pada beberapa breed, seperti Great Dane (8-10 minggu), Boxer (8-12 minggu),
Doberman Pincher (8-12 minggu), Schnauzer (10-12 minggu), English Bull Terrier
(2-6 bulan), Staffordshire (2-4 bulan), Brussels Griffon (2-3 bulan), Boston Terrier
(5-8 bulan) dan Manchester Terrier (8 bulan).
4.1 Manajemen Pra-Operation Ear Trimming
4.1.1 Persiapan Ruang Operasi
Ruang operasi berfungsi sebagai daerah pelayanan yang
mengutamakan aspek hirarki zonasi sterilitas. Sterilisasi pada ruang
operasi dapat dilakukan dengan membersihkan lantai dan meja operasi
menggunakan bahan desinfektan. Setelah meja operasi dibersihkan atau
didesinfektan berikan alas (underpad). Di dalam ruang operasi juga perlu
disiapkan alas kaki khusus untuk dipergunakan hanya di dalam ruang
operasi saja (Sudisma, 2016).
8
9
4.1.2 Persiapan Alat dan Bahan Operasi

Alat- alat yang diperlukan dan disiapkan dalam operasi disesuaikan
dengan jenis operasi yang akan dilakukan. Beberapa alat yang digunakan
untuk melakukan ear trimming seperti gunting, scapel, needle holder,
benang, klem, tampon, bingkai kuping, stetoskop, sarung tangan, lampu
operasi, pinset anatomis dan sirrugis, gunting lurus dan bengkok, cauter.
Bahan yang digunakan seperti antropine sulfat, xylazine, ketamine,
hemostatis dan antiseptic.
4.1.3 Persiapan Hewan yang akan Dioperasi

Persiapan pasien yang harus dilakukan sebelum dilaksanakan
operasi seperti pemeriksaan fisik. Pemeriksaan fisik harus dilakukan
guna untuk mengetahui keadaan pasien sebelum dioperasi agar operasi
berjalan dengan baik. Pemeriksaan fisik yang dilakukan meliputi
anamnesa, memeriksa frekuensi nafas, frekuensi pulsus, temperature,
berat badan, CRT, susunan alat pencernaan, susunan saraf dan susunan
pernafasan.
Sebelum operasi dilakukan hewan dipuasakan 8-12 jam untuk
menghindari dampak dari pemberian anestesi. Ear trimming dilakukan
dengan anestesi umum dengan pemberian atropine sebagai preanestesi
dengan dosis 0,04 mg/kg BB secara intramuscular. Setelah itu berikan
kombinasi ketamine HCl 5,5 – 10 mg dicampur dengan xylazine Hcl
yang diberikan secara intramuscular. Lalu posisikan anjing secara lateral
recumbency jika klem telinga hanya satu atau ventral recumbency jika
klem kedua telinga.
Letakkan kapas disetiap telinga untuk menjaga saluran telinga
bebas dari darah atau desifektan. Lalu cukur rambut disekitar telinga
menggunakan pisau cukur setelah itu berikan antiseptik pada telinga.
Lakukan pengukuran dengan tarik garis dari ujung telinga ke depan tepi
daun telinga yang bersentuhan dengan inner canthus diberi tanda dengan
spidol atau ditusukkan dan samakan kanan kirinya.
10
4.1.4 Persiapan Operator dan Co-Operator

Menurut Sudisma (2016), untuk dapat melakukan operasi seorang
operator harus berkompeten dengan memahami prosedur operasi,
memprediksi hal – hal yang akan terjadi, memperkirakan hasil operasi,
personal hygiene, siap fisik dan mental juga terampil.
4.2 Teknik Operasi Ear Trimming

Menurut Sudisma (2016), teknik operasi ear trimming dengan posisikan
anjing secara ventral recumbency, panjang telinga yang dihendaki diukur
dengan memberi tanda lalu pasangkan ear clamps dan telinga dipotong dengan
scalpel yang tajam. Setelah itu, ear clamps dilepas dan lakukan hemostatis.
Dengan gunting dipotong lagi bagian tulang rawan daerah distal supaya terjadi
lengkungan.
Gambar 4.1 Proses Ear Trimming

(Sumber: Sant, 2005)
11
Terdapat banyak metode yang dapat digunakan untuk melakukan operasi

ear trimming dan dokter hewan harus memilih salah satu dari beberapa metode
sesuai keahliannya, berikut beberapa metode yang dapat dilakukan untuk ear
trimming (Schipper, 1970) :
a. Free Hand Method
Dalam prosedur di metode ini, anjing diposisikan secara sterna
recumbency dan tandai telinga menggunakan spidol sepanjang garis yang
tepat untuk masing-masing breed. Gunakan gunting lurus dengan pisau
pendek, mulai dengan memotong bagian dasar telinga dan memperpanjang
ke ujung sepanjang garis yang telah ditandai. Lalu dorong kulit yang kendur
kea rah bagian kepala sehingga akan ada cukup kulit untuk jahitan ditepi
telinga.
b. Jensen Ear Clamp
Ini merupakan alat penjepit yang berbentuk datar yang panjang yang
terdapat celah didalamnya sehngga pisau bedah dapat melaluinya sehingga
potongan sesuai dengan yang diinginkan.
c. Mac Allan Ear Trimming Clamps
Ini merupakan penjempit yang dibuar dari berbeda ukuran dan
pinggiran. Lalu tarik telinga kedalam posisi diatas kepala, gunakan gunting
tajam atau scalpel untuk memotong kartilago sesuai keinginan untuk
membuat telinga cocok dalam ukuran dan bentuk. Jenis dari bahan jahitan
yang digunakan tergantung dari pilhan individu, bisa menggunakan nilon
dan stainless steel. Menggunakan jarum curved 3/8 nomor 14. Mulai
menjahit ½ inchi dari ujung telinga dan dilanjutkan kearah dasar. Jika
dilakukan jahitan yang terlalu dekat ke ujung telinga makan jahitan akan
mudah lepas. Penggunaan pola jahitan yang digunakan yaitu pola continous
spiral dengan memulai dari dalam lalu ke luar telinga sehingga mengurangi
dari kendurnya kulit dibelakang telinga. Sebelum dijahit, pada tulang rawan
dekat tragus dirapikan agar mempermudahkan jahitan, setelah itu dijahit
dengan pola simple interrupted sedangkan disepertiga bawah dan lainnya
dijahit dengan pola simple continous atau continous spiral.
12
4.3 Perawatan Pasca Operasi Ear Trimming
Gambar 4.2 Penggunaan Elizabeth Collar Pasca Operasi

(Sumber: Sant, 2005)
Setelah pelaksanaan operasi ear trimming hal yang dapat dilakukan yaitu
dengan pemberian antiseptic secara topical, plester bagian dalam dan bagian
luar telinga agar telinga tegak selama tujuh hari, letakkan anjing pada posisi
aman dan nyaman, tidak membalut pada bagian daun telinga karena akan
diberikan antiseptic secara rutin dan dilakukan pemeriksaan kembali setelah 4-
7 hari pasca operasi (Sudisma, 2016). Untuk mengurangi pergerakan aktivitas
anjing yang dapat menyebabkan lepasnya jahitan, maka berikan Elizabeth
Collar pada anjing.
13
BAB V
PENUTUP
5.1 Kesimpulan
Ear trimming merupakan salah satu bedah kosmetik dengan tindakan
pembedahan yang dilakukan oleh dokter hewan ahli bedah yang bertujuan
untuk terapi pasca kecelakaan, tumor, lesi serta memperindah bagian tubuh
tertentu. Sebelum melakukan bedah kosmetika terdapat beberapa hal yang
harus diperhatikan, seperti dari manajemen pre-operasi, teknik operasi, serta
manajemen pasca operasi. Manajemen pre-operasi dapat meliputi persiapan
alat, bahan, dan obat, persiapan ruangan, persiapan hewan yang akan dioperasi,
serta persiapan dari operator dan co-operator. Teknik operasi dari ear trimming
memiliki berbagai jenis teknik, seperti Free Hand Method, Jensen Ear Clamp,
dan Mac Allan Ear Trimming Clamps.
5.2 Saran
Diharapkan agar para pembaca, khususnya mahasiswa Fakultas
Kedokteran Hewan, Universitas Udayana, mampu memahami mengenai teknik
operasi Ear trimming pada hewan, khususnya anjing. Selain itu, diharapkan
dengan seiring berkembangnya ilmu pengetahuan dan teknologi, semakin
banyak penelitian mengenai teknik-teknik operasi dari Ear trimming.
13
14
DAFTAR PUSTAKA
Bennett PC, Perini E. 2003. Tail Docking In Dogs: Can Attitude Change Be
Achieved. Aust Vet J. 81:277–282.
Boxer, Gentry. 2014. Ear Cropping in Boxers. Terdapat pada
http://www.gentryboxers.com/ear-cropping.html. Diakses pada 15
September 2019
Cole, L.K. 2009. Anatomy and Physiology of The Canine Ear. Vet Dermatol Vol
20: 412-21
Debra, Eldredge. 2007. Dog Owner’s Home Veterinary Handbook Fourth Edition.
United States of America: Wiley Publishing, Inc.
Mills, K.E.,Robbins J., Keyserlingk M.A.G. 2016. Tail Docking and Ear Cropping
Dogs: Public Awarenessand Perceptions. PLoS ONE 11(6):
e0158131.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.01581
Njaa, B.L., Cole L.K., Tabacca N. 2012. Practical Otic Anatomy and Physiology of
the Dog and Cat. Vet Clin Small Anim 42: 1109-1126
Sant, Bobby. 2005. Kupir dan Prosesnya. Terdapat pada
https://anjingkita.com/artikel/733/kupir-dan-prosesnya. Diakses pada 16
September 2019
Schipper, Darwin. 1970. Canine Ear Trimming. Iowa State University. Digital
Repository. Volume 32, Issue 2, Halaman: 66-67,73-74.
Sinmez CC, Yasar A. 2013. Turkish Shepherd Dog Kangal In Sivas Folklore. J
World Turks. 5:193–214.
Sinmez CC., Yigit A., Aslim G. 2017. Tail Docking And Ear Cropping In Dogs: A
Short Review Of Laws And Welfare Aspects In The Europe And Turkey.
Italian Journal of Animal Science. Vol. 16, No. 3, 431–437
Sudisma, I G N. 2016. Ilmu Bedah Veteriner dan Teknik Operasi. Denpasar :
Universitas Udayana.
Sudisma, I.G.N., Putra Pemayun, I.G.A.G., Jayawardhita, A.A.G., Gorda I. W.
2006. Ilmu Bedah Veteriner dan Teknik Operasi. Denpasar: Pelawa Sari
Yilmaz O. 2013. Turk Kangal Coban Kopegi Ile Tarihe Nostaljik Bir Yolculuk.
Turk Duny Tar Derg. 53:45 –52.
15
LAMPIRAN
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234064001
Practical Otic Anatomy and Physiology of the Dog and

Cat
Article in Veterinary Clinics of North America Small Animal Practice · November 2012

DOI: 10.1016/j.cvsm.2012.08.011
CITATIONS READS
5 7,410
3 authors:
Brad L Njaa Lynette K Cole

Kansas State University The Ohio State University
53 PUBLICATIONS 842 CITATIONS 40 PUBLICATIONS 725 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Natalie E Tabacca
The Ohio State University
2 PUBLICATIONS 12 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Case Report View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Brad L Njaa on 21 October 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

P r a c t i c a l Ot i c A n a t o m y a n d
Physiology of the Dog and Cat
Bradley L. Njaa, DVM, MVSca,*, Lynette K. Cole, b
DVM, MS ,
Natalie Tabacca, DVM, MSc
KEYWORDS
Pinnae Facial nerve Chorda tympani Auditory tube Tympanic bullae
Epithelial migration Auditory ossicles
KEY POINTS
The close proximity of the auditory ossicles, both the oval and round windows, and both
the facial nerve and branch of the facial nerve, the chorda tympani, to the tympanic
membrane necessitates the clinician exercise extreme caution when performing myrin-
gotomy for the purpose of deep middle ear flushing.
Bulging of the pars flaccida portion of the tympanic membrane into the external ear canal
may be normal in a minority of dogs or may represent a visible sign of otitis externa or
primary secretory otitis media.
Epithelial migration describes the migration of keratinocytes on the external surface of the
tympanic membrane away from the stria mallearis onto the surface of the external canal to
facilitate cleaning, maintenance of its thinness, and healing.
The broad tympanic membrane relative to the much smaller footplate of the stapes and
the articulated auditory ossicles function to amplify the air pressure wave that vibrates
the tympanic membrane to overcome the impedance mismatch between the ambient
air (low) and fluid of the membranous labyrinth (high).
A short segment of the facial canal is devoid of its bony wall near the stapes facilitating
insertion of the tendon of the stapedius muscle to the stapes. However, this exposes
the facial nerve to the middle ear environment and increases its vulnerability to diseases
that may affect the middle ear.
INTRODUCTION
The canine and feline ear can be divided into their component parts, consisting of the
pinnae, the external ear canals or external acoustic meatuses, the middle ear, and the
internal ear (Fig. 1). Knowledge of the normal structure and function of the ear is critical
a
Department of Veterinary Pathobiology, Center for Veterinary Health Sciences, Oklahoma
State University, 226 McElroy Hall, Stillwater, OK 74078-2007, USA; b Department of Clinical
Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, 601 Vernon Tharp Street,
Columbus, OH 43210, USA; c MedVet Medical and Cancer Center for Pets, 300 East Wilson
Bridge Road, Wothington, OH 43085, USA
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: brad.njaa@okstate.edu
Vet Clin Small Anim 42 (2012) 1109–1126

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cvsm.2012.08.011 vetsmall.theclinics.com
0195-5616/12/$ – see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1110 Njaa et al
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the external, middle, and internal ear, dog. (A) Cross-section
through the skull. (B) Close up view of the middle and internal ear outlined in the blue
square in Fig. 1A. (A and B courtesy of Dr L.K. Cole and Mr T. Vojt, College of Veterinary
Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.)
to be able to diagnose abnormalities that either involve the ear or originate within one
or more of the ear compartments. In addition, a veterinarian must be aware of various
structures within or associated with the ear so that they are not damaged or destroyed
while treating an animal with otic disease. This article provides a brief discussion of the
various anatomic features of the ear and normal physiology of portions of the ear. For
more in-depth coverage of otic anatomy and physiology, refer to the following
references.1–8
THE EXTERNAL EAR
The conformation of the pinnae in the dog may be erect or pendulous. Most cats have
erect pinnae. Genetic mutations in the cat have affected the development of the
pinnae, and resulted in breeds of cats with four ears, folded ears, and curled ears.
Cats with the four-eared condition possess a small extra pinna bilaterally, show reduc-
tion of the size of their globes, and have a slightly undershot jaw, with a normal body
size.9 Scottish Fold cats are a unique breed with pinnae that are folded. Up to 4 weeks
postnatal, Scottish Fold cats have erect pinnae, and then the tips of the ears begin to
fold rostrally. All Scottish Fold cats with the folded-ear phenotype, even if heterozy-
gotes, suffer from some degree of osteochondrodysplasia of the distal limbs.10 The
American curl cat breed has pinnae that are curled back at the pinnal apex.
Pinnae play an important role in sound localization and also collect sound waves
and transmit them to the tympanic membrane. The pinnae are composed of auricular
cartilage that is covered on both sides by haired skin complete with apocrine sweat
glands, sebaceous glands, and hair follicles. The convex surface of the pinna has
more hair follicles per unit area than the thinner concave surface.11 The muscles of
the pinna are numerous and act to move the ear in specific directions.
The opening of the external ear canal faces dorsolaterally. The quadrangular plate of
cartilage, the tragus, forms the lateral boundary of the ear canal. The antitragus is
a thin, elongated piece of cartilage caudal to the tragus and separated from it by
Practical Otic Anatomy and Physiology 1111
the intertragic incisure.1 The intertragic incisure is the anatomic region used to guide
the otoscopic cone or otoendoscope into the ear canal for the otoscopic examination
(Fig. 2). The proximal portion of the auricular cartilage becomes funnel shaped forming
the vertical ear canal. The vertical ear canal deviates medially just dorsal to the level of
the tympanum to form the horizontal ear canal.12 There is a prominent cartilaginous
ridge that separates the vertical and horizontal ear canals and when the ear is in its
normal position, makes otic examination of the horizontal ear canal difficult without
elevating this ridge by grasping and lifting the ear pinna (Fig. 3). A separate cartilagi-
nous band, the annular cartilage, fits within the base of this conchal tube, giving the
external ear canal flexibility. The annular cartilage has fibrous attachments to the
osseous external acoustic meatus. The annular cartilage covers the short tubular
osseous external acoustic meatus of the tympanic part of the temporal bone. The
osseous external acoustic meatus ends at the tympanic annulus.
The dorsorostral margin of the external acoustic meatus is in close apposition to
a plateau of bone formed by the zygomatic process of the temporal bone (Fig. 4). In
most dog breeds, zygomatic process of the temporal bone is short and curved and
forms an obtuse angle with the longitudinal axis of the skull. In addition, in most
dog breeds, the retroarticular process of the temporomandibular joint is narrow and
forms a more obtuse angle relative to the vertical plane. In contrast, some dogs,
such as pit bull terriers, have a longer and broader zygomatic process of the temporal
bone that forms a right angle or slightly acute angle to the longitudinal axis. The retro-
articular process is much broader and longer and forms a much more acute angle
Fig. 2. Right pinna, dog. The intertragic incisures is a notch that is caudal to the tragus and
represents a useful anatomic region for insertion of an otoscopic cone (shown) or otoendo-
scope into the ear canal for the otoscopic examination. (Courtesy of Dr L.K. Cole and Mr
J. Harvey, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.)
1112 Njaa et al
Fig. 3. Ear canal, dog. (A) Video otoscopic image, junction of vertical and horizontal canal. A
prominent cartilaginous ridge (arrows) is visible and represents a landmark that separates
the vertical and horizontal ear canals. (B) Video otoscopic image, horizontal canal. This
represents the view down the horizontal ear canal after elevating the prominent cartilagi-
nous ridge by grasping and lifting the ear pinna. (Courtesy of Dr L.K. Cole, College of Veter-
inary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.)
relative to the vertical plane (see Fig. 4). In aggregate, these variations in pit bull
terriers result in an external acoustic meatus that is deeper and possibly better pro-
tected relative to the external surface. However, the clinical significance of this deeper
location and more acute angles can inhibit the depth of insertion of the otoendoscope
when attempting to perform a myringotomy using the video otoscope.
Fig. 4. External ear, dog. (A) Macerated skull, pit bull. The external acoustic meatus (arrow)
opens into an area that is made shallow by a broad retroarticular process (Ra) and a longer
zygomatic process of the temporal bone (Zp). The angle that is formed by the plateau of
bone approximates 90 degrees or slightly less. (B) Macerated skull, shepherd cross dog.
The external acoustic meatus (arrow) opens into an area that is more open with a small,
shallower retroarticular process (Ra) and a shorter zygomatic process of the temporal
bone (Zp). In this dog, the angle formed is more obtuse providing greater access to the
ear by otoscopic examination. B, tympanic bulla; Oc, occipital condyles. (Courtesy of Dr
B.L. Njaa, Center for Veterinary Health Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK.)
The epidermis lining the external ear canal is similar histologically to the pinna;
however, in most breeds, hairs are fewer and do not extend the length of the ear
canal.13 A very few fine hairs are found distal to the tympanic membrane. These hairs
are a useful landmark when flushing an ear to locate the tympanic membrane in an
abnormal ear (Fig. 5). Cocker spaniel dogs typically have excessive compound hair
follicles in the horizontal ear canal compared with sparsely distributed, simple hair folli-
cles in greyhound dogs and mixed breed dogs.14
The external ear canal also contains sebaceous glands and ceruminous glands,
which are modified apocrine glands. Cerumen is an emulsion that coats the ear canal.
It is composed of desquamated keratinized squamous epithelial cells along with the
secretions from the sebaceous and ceruminous glands of the ears. The dermis of
the external ear canal is typical, consisting of collagen and elastic fibers and a subcu-
taneous layer that separates the dermis from the deeper cartilage layer.1
The external ear and external canal terminate medially at the tympanic membrane. It
is important to note that the tympanic membrane is orientated at a 45-degree angle
relative to the central axis of the horizontal external acoustic meatus. In some breeds,
the tympanic membrane is also variably orientated rostrally.8 From a clinical perspec-
tive, this angle can be used to advantage while performing a deep external ear flush,
allowing one to be able to pass a catheter along the ventral floor of the horizontal ear
canal without rupturing the tympanic membrane to remove all the flushing solution and
saline (Fig. 6).
THE TYMPANIC MEMBRANE
The tympanic membrane is a semitransparent three-layer membrane. The tympanic

membrane is divided into two sections: the smaller dorsal pars flaccida and the larger
ventral pars tensa. In most dogs and in the cat the pars flaccida is flat. If the pars flac-
cida bulges laterally, this is an uncommon finding in normal dogs but may also be
found in ears of dogs with otitis externa (Fig. 7). Histologic differences have not
been identified between flat and bulging pars flaccidas in normal dogs, so it seems
unlikely that a structural difference explains a bulging pars flaccida.15 However, in
Fig. 5. Video otoscopic image of the tympanic membrane. (A) Tympanic membrane, right ear,
dog. A prominent tuft of hair is immediately distal to the tympanic membrane (arrow). In the
dog, the stria mallearis is distinctly “C”-shaped stria malleris (arrowhead). (B) Tympanic
membrane, right ear, cat. The stria mallearis in cats is much more straightened and perpen-
dicular (arrowhead), lacking the “C”-shape observed dogs. (Courtesy of Dr L.K. Cole, College
of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.)
1114 Njaa et al
Fig. 6. Schematic diagram illustrating placement of the otoendoscope in the ear canal while
performing a deep ear flush of the external ear canal. Inset diagram is a higher magnifica-
tion depicting the typical 45-degree angle of the tympanic membrane and a catheter
passing ventrally to suction the flushing solution and saline from the external ear canal.
(Courtesy of Dr L.K. Cole and Mr T. Vojt, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State
University, Columbus, OH.)
Cavalier King Charles spaniel dogs, a bulging pars flaccida is indicative of primary
secretory otitis media, a disease in which mucus fills the middle ear cavity, possibly
as a result of auditory tube dysfunction (please refer the article by Dr Cole elsewhere
in this issue).16
Fig. 7. Bulging pars flaccida, right ear, dog. In a minority of normal dogs, the pars flaccida
bulges (asterisk) into the external ear canal. However, a bulging pars flaccida may be seen in
dogs with otitis externa or in Cavalier King Charles spaniel dogs with primary secretory otitis
media. (Courtesy of Dr L.K. Cole, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University,
Columbus, OH.)
The pars tensa comprises most of the total surface area of the tympanic membrane.
It is very thin but extremely tough and robuse, with radiating ridges. The manubrium of
the malleus is embedded in the tympanic membrane of the pars tensa with its flattened
surface facing craniolaterally, and its medial contours bulging from the medial surface
of the tympanic membrane into middle ear compartment. The pars tensa has
a concave shape when viewed externally because of the tension applied to the internal
surface of the membrane, where the manubrium of the malleus is attached. The point
of greatest depression, opposite the distal end of the manubrium, is called the umbo
(Fig. 8).1,6,7
The outline of the manubrium of the malleus, the stria mallearis, may be visualized
when the tympanic membrane is viewed externally. The stria mallearis is hook- or
C-shaped in the dog, with the concave aspect of the “C” facing rostrally (see Fig. 5A).
In the cat, the stria mallearis is straight with no hook- or C-shape (see Fig. 5B). Based
on a study of experimentally ruptured normal tympanic membranes, if one performs
a myringotomy, the membrane should regenerate by Day 14, with complete healing
between 21 and 35 days.17
A unique feature of the tympanic membrane is its ability to remain extremely thin and
resilient despite the continuous secretions of dermal adnexal glands. The mainte-
nance of its thinness and self-cleaning function of the external ear is primarily achieved
by a process called “epithelial migration.”
Epithelial migration is the movement of keratinocytes of the lateral (external auditory
canal) surface of the tympanic membrane and of the auditory canal epithelium. It provides
a self-cleaning mechanism for removal of debris from the external auditory canal and
tympanic membrane. During this process, cerumen is transported away from the
tympanic membrane and toward the opening of the distal auditory canal. This prevents
the accumulation of cerumen that could lead to conductive hearing loss.18–21
Fig. 8. Chorda tympani, right ear, dog. The chorda tympani (arrow) courses dorsally across
the neck of the malleus ventral to the muscular process of the malleus (Mp), in close prox-
imity to the pars tensa. The stapes (S) is anchored in the oval or vestibular window and the
foot plate (arrowhead) is clearly visible in the opened vestibule (V). The stapes and incus (I)
articulate to form the incudostapedius joint. Tendon of the stapedius muscle (asterisk). C,
cochlea; M, manubrium of the malleus; TT, tensor tympani muscle. (Courtesy of Dr B.L.
Njaa, Center for Veterinary Health Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK.)
1116 Njaa et al
Epithelial migration maintains the tympanic membrane as thin and highly responsive
by transporting stratum corneum keratinocytes off of the tympanic membrane toward
the open end of the external auditory canal.18,21–23 This stratum corneal keratinocyte
migration along the surface of the tympanic membrane also serves to repair punc-
tures, whether they are spontaneous perforations24–28 or postoperative incisions (myr-
ingotomy sites).29
The epithelial migration rate and pattern has now been described for normal tympanic
membranes in many species including humans,27,29–36 gerbils,20,37 rats,38 and guinea
pigs.20,39–42 Unfortunately, epithelial migration information is not available for normal
feline tympanic membranes. However, epithelial migration of canine tympanic
membranes has been investigated.43 Waterproof ink markers were placed on two sites
of the pars tensa, caudal to the stria mallearis, and one on the center of the pars flaccida
of tympanic membranes of normal laboratory dogs. Each inked membrane was evalu-
ated four times, every 6 to 8 days using video otoscopy and a digital capture system.
Image processing software was used to analyze the migration pattern and calculate
the epithelial migration rate in microns per day. The direction of movement for each
ink drop was recorded as outward (toward the periphery of the tympanic membrane
and external auditory canal) or inward (toward the center of the tympanic membrane)
and the overall pattern for each ink drop on each dog’s membrane was recorded.
The mean overall epithelial migration rate for ink drops placed on the pars tensa and
pars flaccida was 96.4 and 225.4 um/d, respectively. All ink drops were observed to
migrate outward, toward the periphery of the tympanic membrane and external audi-
tory canal. Ink drops never migrated from the pars tensa onto the pars flaccida or vice
versa. A percentage of the ink drops at all three locations were observed to migrate off
of the tympanic membrane and onto the epithelium of the external auditory canal.
Migration off of the tympanic membrane by the last evaluation day was noted most
frequently for the pars flaccida location. Most of the ink drops (90.6%) moved in
a radial direction, in a straight line outward like spokes on a bicycle wheel. The remain-
ing ink drops moved in a centrifugal pattern, in which the ink drops took a curved
course outward from the original location.43
Functionally, the tympanic membrane vibrates in response to sound-generated air
pressure waves, which translates into fluid pressure waves in the aqua environment
of the internal ear compartments of the membranous labyrinth. However, air and fluid
have very different impedance (the tendency of a medium to oppose movement brought
about by a pressure wave).44 Because fluid has higher impedance than air, a direct
transfer of a pressure wave from air to water is insufficient to move through the internal
ear fluid compartment. This is referred to as “impedance mismatch.” Thus, the middle
ear functions as an impedance-matching device by the following mechanisms. First, the
surface area of the tympanic membrane is much larger than the surface area of the foot
plate of the stapes anchored in the vestibular or oval window of the petrous portion of
the temporal bone. Second, the incus and malleus act as a lever system. In aggregate,
these two features inherent of the middle ear function to amplify the pressure wave and
overcome the impedance mismatch.44 From a clinical perspective, a perforation of the
tympanic membrane, articular defect to the auditory ossicles, or altered middle ear
function because of otitis media may contribute to impairing of this impedance
mismatch, and thus result in impaired detection of sound.
THE MIDDLE EAR
The middle ear is an air-filled alcove fortified on nearly every fringe by bone; laterally by
the tympanic portion of the temporal bone and medial surface of the tympanic
membrane; ventrally by the tympanic bulla; medially by the petrous portion of the
temporal bone; and dorsally by petrous portion and the tympanic portion of
the temporal bone (Fig. 9).1–3 Rostrally, this chamber is open to the nasopharynx by
the narrow musculotubular canal, through which penetrates the cartilage conduit of
the auditory tube and the tensor veli palatine muscle.4 Finally, three auditory ossicles
(malleus, incus, and stapes) form a chain of bones dorsally in the middle ear and
provide a direct bony connection between the aerated external environment and the
fluid environment of the perilymph of the internal ear.1,4
The mean middle ear cavity volume of mesaticephalic dogs as measured by
computed tomography technique is 1.5 mL, and the middle ear cavity volume
increases in a nonlinear fashion by body weight45 suggesting that on average when
flushing the middle ear cavity during a deep ear flush or when instilling medications
into the tympanic bulla that 1.5 mL should be a sufficient volume in an average-size
dog.
The tympanic cavity is divided into the epitympanic recess, the tympanic cavity
proper, and the ventral cavity. The epitympanic recess is the smallest of the three
areas and is occupied almost entirely by the head of the malleus and incus (see
Fig. 9).1,12 The tympanic cavity proper is adjacent to the tympanic membrane. On
the medial wall of the tympanic cavity proper, there is a bony eminence, the promon-
tory of the petrous portion of the temporal bone, which houses the cochlea. The
Fig. 9. Right ear, rostral view, dog. The middle ear has three main compartments. The epi-
tympanic recess (arrow) is the smallest, most dorsal compartment occupied by the articu-
lated malleus and incus (I). The next largest is the tympanic cavity proper (Tp) demarcated
laterally by the tympanic membrane (torn in this image) and medially by the promontory
of the petrous portion of the temporal bone (P). The largest is the ventral compartment
(V) surrounded by the bone of the tympanic bulla (asterisk). Ventral bony ridge of the
external acoustic meatus (double asterisk); stapes (arrowhead). Bs, brainstem; C, cochlea;
Cr, cerebellar cortex; E, external ear canal; F, facial nerve in its facial canal; S, incomplete
septum bulla. (Courtesy of Dr B.L. Njaa, Center for Veterinary Health Sciences, Oklahoma
State University, Stillwater, OK.)
1118 Njaa et al
promontory is located opposite to the mid-dorsal aspect of the tympanic membrane.

The cochlear (round) window is located in the caudolateral portion of the promon-
tory6,12 and is covered by a thin membrane.6 The vestibular (oval) window is located
on the dorsolateral surface of the promontory, medial to the pars flaccida.1,12 Nor-
mally, the stapes is firmly lodged in the vestibular window with its baseplate held in
place by the annular ligament of the vestibular window. The largest of the three cavities
is the ventral cavity, occupying the ventromedial portion of the tympanic bulla (see
Fig. 9).1,2
Within the middle ear of the dog and cat is a bony septum referred to as the septum
bulla (Fig. 10).1–4 In the dog, the bulla septum is a small, incomplete ridge that only
makes contact with the petrous portion of the temporal bone rostrally and often has
tiny, elongate bony spicules with bulbous ends.1,8 In the cat, the septum bulla abuts
the petrous portion of the temporal bone and separates the tympanic cavity into
two compartments: the dorsolateral epitympanic cavity (pars tympanica) and the
ventromedial tympanic cavity (pars endotympanica).1,4,8 This separation is almost
complete, allowing communication between the two compartments only through
two small openings: one is between the septum bulla and petrous portion of the
temporal bone and the other is located caudally, just lateral to the round window.
The difference in the size of this septum between the dog and the cat is of clinical
significance in the treatment and management of middle ear disease. Because the
bulla septum is very small in the dog, resulting in a large opening between the
tympanic cavity proper and the ventral bulla, this allows one to be able to flush the
entire tympanic bulla. In the cat, it is only possible to flush the dorsolateral compart-
ment of the tympanic bulla because it is divided into two compartments. Therefore,
Fig. 10. Septum bullae. (A) Right ear, caudoventral view, dog. The septum bulla (S) is incom-
plete separating the tympanic cavity proper from the ventral tympanic cavity (V). Dorsoros-
trally, the auditory tube is visible (arrow). Tympanic bulla (asterisk). M, manubrium of the
malleus; P, petrous portion of the temporal bone; Tm, tympanic membrane. (B) Left ear,
ventral view, cat. The septum bulla (S) is complete and abuts (double asterisk) the petrous
portion of the temporal bone (P). Caudally, there is an open communication (arrow)
between the two cavities formed by the septum bulla. Tympanic bulla (asterisk). R, round
window; V, ventral tympanic cavity. (Courtesy of Dr B.L. Njaa, Center for Veterinary Health
Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK.)
in most cases of middle ear disease in the cat, surgical management of the ear disease
is necessary. In addition, one needs to avoid the use of ointment-based medications
or otic packing material instilled into the ear of the cat with a ruptured tympanic
membrane, because the medication may leak into the large ventromedial compart-
ment and become trapped.
AUDITORY OSSICLES
The auditory ossicular chain formed by articulations between the malleus and incus, or
the incudomallearis joint, and the incus and the stapes, or the incudostapedius joint,
functions as a lever system. In concert with the marked difference in surface area
between the tympanic membrane and the footplate of the stapes, the net result is ampli-
fication of the initial air pressure wave to account for the increase impedance of the fluid
in the membranous labyrinthine compartment of the cochlear of the internal ear.44
The malleus, the largest of the auditory ossicles, has a long process, the manubrium,
embedded in the tympanic membrane. Projecting rostrally from the neck of the malleus
is the muscular process, the attachment site for the tensor tympani muscle. Dorsally,
the head of the malleus and body of the incus articulate to form the incudomallearis
joint, anchored in the epitympanic recess by ligaments. A small branch of the facial
nerve, the chorda tympani, exits the facial canal, passes beneath the base of the
muscular process of the malleus medial to but in close proximity to the pars flaccida
before exiting the middle ear (see Fig. 8).1,2,4 Once beyond the ear, the chorda tympani
merges with the lingual branch of the mandibular nerve (cranial nerve V) once exiting
through a canal in the rostrodorsal wall of the tympanic bulla to innervate the rostral
third of the tongue.1 Otitis media and traumatic or surgical rupture dorsal in the
tympanic membrane can potentially result in impairment of taste.
The incus is much smaller that the malleus with two bony extensions or crura
(Fig. 11). Although the short crus is largely anchored in the epitympanic recess along
with the incudomallearis joint, the long crus extends medially and caudally from the
malleus to articulate with the stapes (see Fig. 8).1,2,8 At the distal, medial end of the
long crus is a small flat bone, the lenticular process, that articulates with the head
of the stapes to form the incudostapedius joint (shown in Figs. 1 and 3 in the article
by Garosi elsewhere in this issue).1,2,4,8
The smallest of the auditory ossicles, the stapes, is a triangular bone that is anchored
in the oval or vestibular window by its annular ligament (see Figs. 8 and 11). It functions
as a piston that transduces tympanic membrane vibrations to fluid waves in the peri-
lymph of the internal ear membranous labyrinthine compartments.1,2,8
The facial nerve enters the internal acoustic meatus and travels through the facial
canal of the petrous portion of the temporal bone, exiting the skull through the stylo-
mastoid foramen immediately caudal to the external acoustic meatus.1–3,8 The facial
canal is a bony tunnel that courses through the petrous portion of the temporal
bone. In a small region caudal and dorsal to the caudal crus of the stapes, this
bony canal is incomplete and exposed to the middle ear compartment. The opening
corresponds to the region where the tendon of the stapedius muscle emerges and
inserts near the head of the stapes (Fig. 12; also shown in Fig. 1 in the article by Garosi
elsewhere in this issue). This opening also corresponds to the location where otitis
media can infiltrate through connective tissue and result in facial neuritis. Otitis media
resulting in facial nerve paralysis causes facial drooping or spasms and ocular signs. If
the patient develops a head tilt, this is a clinical indication of vestibulocochlear nerve
involvement caused by an ascending otitis interna (see the article by Garosi elsewhere
in this issue).
1120 Njaa et al
Fig. 11. Auditory ossicles, right ear, dog. The stapes is the smallest bone with a narrow head
(Sh), a broader foot plate (Fp), and an attachment site close to the head for the tendon of
the stapedius muscle. The malleus and incus are articulated to form the incudomallearis
joint (Im). The malleus has a long manubrium (M) That is embedded in the tympanic
membrane, a neck (Mn), and head (Mh). The incus has a body (Ib), short crus (Sc), and
long crus (Lc). At the end of the long crus is the lenticular process (Lp) that articulates
with the head of the stapes to form the incudostapedius joint. Insertion site for tendon
of stapedius muscle (St). (Courtesy of Dr B.L. Njaa, Center for Veterinary Health Sciences,
Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK.)
Fig. 12. Right middle ear, dog. In this ventral view, the facial nerve (double asterisk) is
exposed caudal to the stapes (S) with an incomplete bony ridge of the facial canal (arrow-
head) visible dorsally. The tendon of the stapedius muscle (arrow) emerges from the same
opening in the facial canal. C, chorda tympani; E, epitympanic recess; I, incus; M, muscular
process of the malleus; P, promontory; R, round window; T, tensor tympani muscle. (Courtesy
of Dr B.L. Njaa, DVM, MVSc, Center for Veterinary Health Sciences, Oklahoma State Univer-
sity, Stillwater, OK.)
THE AUDITORY TUBE
The auditory tube is a short canal that extends from the nasopharynx to the rostral
portion of the tympanic cavity proper (Fig. 13). It functions to equalize pressure on
both sides of the tympanic membrane.46 The auditory tube is divided into three
portions: (1) cartilaginous (proximal and opens into the nasopharyx); (2) junctional
(part of tube at which the cartilaginous and osseous portions connect); and (3) the
osseous potion (distal and opens into the rostral middle ear). The osseous portion
of the auditory tube is patent at all times, whereas the cartilaginous portion is closed
at rest and opens during swallowing.47
Contraction of the levator muscle and tensor palatini muscle function in concert to
open the auditory tube. The entrance to the auditory tube is obscured behind the soft
palate, midway between the caudal aspect of the nares and the caudal border of the
soft palate.12 Based on contrast-enhanced computed tomographic imaging, the audi-
tory tube originates from the rostral, dorsomedial aspect of the bulla and enters the
dorsolateral aspect of the nasopharynx just caudal to the hamulus process of the pter-
ygoid bone.48
THE INTERNAL EAR
The petrous portion of the temporal bone is the densest bone in the body, forming
the medial margin of the middle ear. It is an angular, conical bone with its apex
pointed rostral and ventral (Fig. 14). Relative to other bones of the skull, the petrous
portion of the temporal bone is more yellow and does not contain medullary or
marrow compartments. A bony bulge that protrudes lateral and ventral from the
petrous temporal bone is referred to as the “promontory.”1,2,8 The basal turn of
the cochlea is demarcated by this promontory. The vestibular or oval window and
cochlear or round window flank the promontory on opposing sites. Rostrally,
a second bulge is present in dogs and cats, denoting the cochlea. Contrary to
many textbook diagrams that clearly delineate the membranous labyrinthine
Fig. 13. Auditory tubes, dog. Both tympanic bullae (asterisks) are exposed after removal of
the mandible and associated muscles. Bilaterally opening into the nasopharynx (N) are the
auditory tubes (arrows). Sutures were placed and used to hold the auditory tubes open.
However, they are typically closed. (Courtesy of Dr B.L. Njaa, Center for Veterinary Health
Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK.)
1122 Njaa et al
Fig. 14. Petrous portion of the temporal bone, left ear, cat. The bone on the right has had
the cochlea and promontory opened with the use of bone cutters. The most prominent
medial bulge is the promontory (P), flanked by the vestibular or oval window (V), and
the cochlear or round window (R). This promontory corresponds to the basal turn of the
cochlea (Bc). A rostral bulge corresponds to the spiral cochlea (C). A bony depression (Tm)
is the fossa for the tensor tympani muscle. The facial canal (F) is partially opened in these
sections. (Courtesy of Dr B.L. Njaa, Center for Veterinary Health Sciences, Oklahoma State
University, Stillwater, OK.)
spiraled cochlea, bulging saccule and utricle, and looping semicircular canals, in
reality these delicate structures are buried within the bony labyrinth of the petrous
portion of the temporal bone and are not clearly visible without sophisticated
imaging equipment.
When performing a myringotomy during a deep ear flush, it is important to avoid
damaging the promontory and the round and oval windows so as to not induce iatro-
genic neurologic complications. It is also important to avoid damaging the ossicles,
which are important for the amplification and transmission of sound waves to the
internal ear. Because the oval and round windows are located on the dorsal and
caudal aspect of the promontory, respectively, the promontory is located opposite
to the mid-dorsal aspect of the tympanic membrane, and the ossicles are located dor-
sorostrally, the myringotomy should be performed in the caudoventral quadrant of the
tympanic membrane.
The two main functional units of the internal ear are the auditory system and the
vestibular system.44 The former provides a sense of hearing; the latter a sense of
balance. The internal ear portion of the auditory system comprises the cochlea and
associated cochlear branch of the vestibulocochlear nerve and its connections to the
central nervous system. The vestibular system comprises several fluid-filled, epithe-
lial-lined compartments (saccule, utricle, and semicircular canals), which continually
provide input to the brain regarding head and body orientation and direction and speed
of movement.
THE COCHLEA
The cochlea is the highly coiled series of fluid-filled compartments. The two main
compartments include the scala vestibuli and the scala tympani, both containing peri-
lymph, a distillate of cerebrospinal fluid. At the apex of the cochlea both scala are in
direct communication by the helicotrema.1,2,4,49,50 Sandwiched between these two
scala is the much smaller fluid-filled scala media or cochlear duct (shown in the articles
by Ryugo and Strain elsewhere in this issue). The scala media is separated from the
scala vestibuli by the vestibular membrane (Reissner’s membrane) and from the scala
tympani by the basilar membrane (shown in the article by Ryugo elsewhere in this
issue). These three compartments spiral 2.5 turns about a central axis known as the
“modiolus,” through which runs the cochlear nerve.1,2,4,49,50
Atop the basilar membrane is the organ of Corti, the sensory or spiral organ of
hearing. The sensory cells are called hair cells, denoted as inner hair cells and outer
hair cells, relative to a central modiolus point of reference. A gelatinous, collagen-
containing tectorial membrane is suspended over the organ of Corti, in which hair cells
are apically embedded. The hair cells receive afferent and efferent innervation from the
cochlear branch of the vestibulocochlear nerve (cranial nerve VIII).44,49,50
Hair cells are not neurons but are cellular mechanoreceptors with apical sensory
“hairs” that are not pilosebaceous units but highly specialized stereocilia and kinocilia.
Fluid pressure waves in the scala vestibuli from vibrations from the stapes result in
deflection of the basilar membrane of the scala media. This results in movement of
the organ of Corti and the tectorial membrane perched on the apical cilia of hair cells
causes them to bend. The direction these apical cilia bend determines if the cell
becomes depolarized or hyperpolarized. Depolarized hair cells release neurotrans-
mitter across its basolateral margin at synapses with neurons of the cochlear nerve,
whereas hyperpolarization of the cell inhibits neurotransmitter release. Along its
length, the basilar membrane varies from narrow and thick to wide and thin, thereby
enabling detection of various frequencies along its entire length (shown in the article
by Ryugo elsewhere in this issue).44,49,50
The auditory system is covered in much greater depth in several articles in this issue.
THE VESTIBULAR SYSTEM
The caudal half to one-third of the petrous portion of the temporal bone contains
the vestibular structures, including the saccule, the utricle, and the semicircular canals
(shown in the article by Ryugo elsewhere in this issue).1–4,8,49,50 The saccule and
utricle are located within the vestibule in close proximity to the stapes and basal
turn of the cochlea. Neurosensory epithelial hair cells aggregate in a thickened region
of the wall of these endolymph-filled cavities called the macula. The saccular macula is
oriented vertically, whereas the uticular macula is oriented horizontally. Overlying each
maculae is a gelatinous layer of polysaccharide to which are adhered small calcium
carbonate crystals called “otoliths.” Because these otoliths have greater density
than endolymph, as the head moves, otoliths under the pull of gravity cause the apical
cilia of hair cells to become deflected. In aggregate, the maculae of the utricle and
saccule function to detect the steady tilt of the head.44
Semicircular canals branch caudally from the utricle in orthogonal planes. Each canal
bulges at its direct connection to the utricle called “ampullae.” Specialized neurosen-
sory structures within the ampullae are called “crista ampularis,” which contain sensory
hair cells. Apical cilia from these hair cells are embedded in a gelatinous structure
called the cupula. Movement of these cupula relative to their embedded hair cells is
how rapid angular acceleration of an animal’s head is detected.44,49,50
1124 Njaa et al
Vestibular function and dysfunction is covered more extensively elsewhere in this

issue.
SUMMARY
The ear is often thought of as pinnae and associated structures. The pinnae and asso-
ciated dermis is a direct extension of the epidermis and dermis of the body and may be
a predilection site for various dermatologic entities. The middle ear is a bony encased,
air-filled chamber whose only connection to ambient air is through the auditory tube.
Within this cavity are three crucial bones, the auditory ossicles, which transduce air
pressure changes in the tympanic membrane to fluid waves in the internal ear acting
as an impedance matching device. Specialized neurosensory epithelium within the
cochlear portion of the membranous labyrinth of the internal ear convert these fluid
waves into action potentials that are transmitted to the brain by the cochlear nerve
for recognition as sound. Variation in the width and density of the basilar membrane
of the scala media mediates variable recognition of various sound frequencies. Similar
neurosensory epithelium in the vestibular portions of the internal ear similarly respond
to steady and rapid acceleration movements of the head to maintain balance and
normal proprioception by signals traveling through the vestibular branch of the vesti-
bulocochlear nerve. Therefore, numerous loci within this complex sensory organ can
become dysfunctional. Recognition of clinical disease necessitates a “sound” under-
standing of otic anatomy and physiology and keen observation skills.
REFERENCES
1. Evans HE, de Lahunta A. The ear. In: Evans HE, de Lahunta A, editors. Miller’s
anatomy of the dog. 4th edition. St. Louis (MO): Elsevier; 2013. p. 731–45.
2. Liebich HG, Konig HE. Vestibulocochlear organ. In: Konig HE, Liebich HG,
editors. Veterinary anatomy of domestic animals: textbook and colour atlas. 3rd
edition. New York: Schattauer; 2007. p. 593–608.
3. Boyd JS. A color atlas of clinical anatomy of the dog & cat. Aylesbury, bucks
(England): Mosby-Wolfe; 1995.
4. Constantinescu GM, Schaller O, editors. Illustrated veterinary anatomical nomen-
clature. 3rd edition. Stuttgart (Germany): Enke Verlag; 2012.
5. Cole LK. Anatomy and physiology of the canine ear. Vet Dermatol 2009;20:
412–21.
6. Kumar A. Anatomy of the canine and feline ear. In: Gotthelf LN, editor. Small animal
ear diseases. 2nd edition. St. Louis (MO): Elsevier Saunders; 2005. p. 1–21.
7. Heine PA. Anatomy of the ear. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2004;34:
379–95.
8. Njaa BL. The ear. In: Zachary JF, McGavin MD, editors. Pathologic basis of veter-
inary disease. 5th edition. St. Louis (MO): Elsevier Mosby; 2012. p. 1153–93.
9. Little CC. Four-ears, a recessive mutation in the cat. J Hered 1957;48(2):57.
10. Takanosu M, Takanosu T, Suzuki H, et al. Incomplete dominant osteochondrodys-
plasia in heterozygous Scottish fold cats. J Small Anim Pract 2008;49:197–9.
11. Calhoun ML, Stinson AW. Integument. In: Dellmann HD, Brown EM, editors. Text-
book of veterinary histology. 3rd edition. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger; 1987.
p. 382–415.
12. Harvey RG, Harari J, Delauche AJ. The normal ear. Ear diseases of the dog and
cat. Ames (IA): Iowa State University Press; 2001. 9–41.
13. Fraser G. The histopathology of the external auditory meatus of the dog. J Comp
Pathol 1961;71:253–60.
14. Stout-Graham M, Kainer RA, Whalen LR, et al. Morphologic measurements of the
external horizontal ear canal of dogs. Am J Vet Res 1990;51:990–4.
15. Cole LK, Weisbrode SE, Smeak DD. Variation in gross and histological appear-
ance of the canine pars flaccida. Vet Dermatol 2007;18:464–8.
16. Stern-Bertholtz W, Sjostrom L, Hakanson NW. Primary secretory otitis media in the
cavalier King Charles spaniel: a review of 61 cases. J Small Anim Pract 2003;44:
253–6.
17. Steiss JE, Boosinger TR, Wright JC, et al. Healing of experimentally perforated
tympanic membranes, demonstrated by electrodiagnostic testing and histopa-
thology. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 1992;28:307–10.
18. Jahn AF, Santos-Sacchi J. Physiology of the ear. 2nd edition. San Diego (CA):
Singular/Thomson Learning; 2001. 689.
19. Logas DB. Diseases of the ear canal. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 1994;
24:905–19.
20. Tinling SP, Chole RA. Gerbilline cholesteatoma development part I: epithelial
migration pattern and rate on the gerbil tympanic membrane: comparisons with
human and guinea pig. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2006;134(5):788–93.
21. Litton WB. Epidermal migration in the ear: the location and characteristics of the
generati center revealed by utilizing a radioactive desoxyribose nucleic acid
precursor. Acta Otolaryngol 1968;66(Suppl 240):5–39.
22. Lim DJ. Structure and function of the tympanic membrane: a review. Acta Otorhi-
nolaryngol Belg 1995;49(2):101–15.
23. White PD. Medical management of chronic otitis in dogs. Compend Contin Educ
Pract Vet 1999;21(8):716–28.
24. Clawson JP, Litton WB. The healing process of tympanic membrane perforations.
Trans Am Acad Ophthalmol Otolaryngol 1971;75(6):1302–12.
25. Johnson A, Hawke M. The function of migratory epidermis in the healing of
tympanic membrane perforations in guinea-pig. A photographic study. Acta Oto-
laryngol 1987;103(1–2):81–6.
26. Wang WQ, Wang ZM, Chi FL. Spontaneous healing of various tympanic
membrane perforations in the rat. Acta Otolaryngol 2004;124(10):1141–4.
27. Simmons FB. Epithelial migration in central-type tympanic perforations. Prelimi-
nary report on a potential diagnostic tool. Arch Otolaryngol 1961;74:435–6.
28. McIntire C, Benitez JT. Spontaneous repair of the tympanic membrane. histpatho-
logical studies in the cat. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 1970;79(6):1129–31.
29. Deong KK, Prepageran N, Raman R. Epithelial migration of the postmyringo-
plasty tympanic membrane. Otol Neurotol 2006;27(6):855–8.
30. Alberti PW. Epithelial migration on the tympanic membrane. J Laryngol Otol 1964;
78:808–30.
31. Michaels L, Soucek S. Auditory epithelial migration on the human tympanic
membrane .2. The existence of 2 discrete migratory pathways and their embryo-
logic correlates. Am J Anat 1990;189(3):189–200.
32. Makino K, Amatsu M. Epithelial migration on the tympanic membrane and
external canal. Arch Otorhinolaryngol 1986;243(1):39–42.
33. Bonding P, Charabi S. Epithelial migration in mastoid cavities. Clin Otolaryngol
1994;19(4):306–9.
34. Bahadur S, Kacker SK. Epithelial migration in posterosuperior retraction pockets
and in grafted tympanic membranes. Ear Nose Throat J 1982;61(2):98–101.
35. Moriarty BG, Johnson AP, Patel P. Patterns of epithelial migration in the unaffected
ear in patients with a history of unilateral cholesteatoma. Clin Otolaryngol Allied
Sci 1991;16(1):48–51.
1126 Njaa et al
36. Tang IP, Prepageran N, Raman R, et al. Epithelial migration in the atelectatic
tympanic membrane. J Laryngol Otol 2009;123(12):1321–4.
37. Yi ZX, Shi GS, Huang CC. Age-related epithelial migration on the tympanic
membrane of the Mongolian gerbil. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1988;98(6):
564–7.
38. Kakoi H, Anniko M, Pettersson CA. Auditory epithelial migration .1. Macroscopic
evidence of migration and pathways in rat. Acta Otolaryngol 1996;116(3):435–8.
39. O’Donoghue GM. Epithelial migration on the guinea-pig tympanic membrane: the
influence of perforation and ventilating tube insertion. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci
1983;8(5):297–303.
40. Miller SM. Epidermal migration in the external ear canal of the guinea pig.
J Otolaryngol Soc Aust 1983;5(2):71–5.
41. O’Donoghue GM. Tympanic epithelium: an ultrastructural, experimental and
clinical-study. J R Soc Med 1984;77(9):758–60.
42. Johnson A, Hawke M. An ink impregnation study of the migratory skin in the
external auditory canal of the guinea-pig. Acta Otolaryngol 1986;101(3–4):
269–77.
43. Tabacca NE, Cole LK, Hillier A, et al. Epithelial migration on the canine tympanic
membrane. Vet Dermatol 2011;22(6):502–10.
44. Connors BW. Sensory transduction. In: Boron WF, Boulpaep EL, editors. Medical
physiology. updated edition. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders; 2005. p. 343–52.
45. Defalque VE, Rosenstein DS, Rosser EJ. Measurement of normal middle ear
cavity volume in mesaticephalic dogs. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2005;46:490–3.
46. Evans HE, de Lahunta A. The respiratory system. In: Evans HE, de Lahunta A,
editors. Miller’s anatomy of the dog. 4th edition. St. Louis (MO): W. B. Elsevier
Saunders; 2013. p. 345.
47. Bluestone CD. Anatomy. Eustachian tube, structure, function, role in otitis media.
Hamilton (ON): BC Decker Inc; 2005. 25–50.
48. Cole LK, Samii VF. Contrast-enhanced computed tomographic imaging of the
auditory tube in mesaticephalic dogs. Vet Radiol Ultrasound 2007;48:125–8.
49. Michaels L. The ear. In: Sternberg SS, editor. Histology for pathologists. 2nd
edition. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1997. p. 337–66.
50. Michaels L. Atlas of ear, nose and throat pathology. In: Gresham GA, editor.
Current histopathology, vol. 16. Dordrecht (The Netherlands): Kluwer Academic
Publishers; 1990. p. 9–39.
View publication stats

RESEARCH ARTICLE
Tail Docking and Ear Cropping Dogs: Public

Awareness and Perceptions
Katelyn E. Mills, Jesse Robbins, Marina A. G. von Keyserlingk*
Animal Welfare Program, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
British Columbia, Canada
* nina@mail.ubc.ca
Abstract
Tail docking and ear cropping are two surgical procedures commonly performed on many
dog breeds. These procedures are classified as medically unnecessary surgeries whose
purpose is primarily cosmetic. Available attitude research surrounding these controversial
practices has been limited to surveys of veterinarians and dog breeders familiar with both
a11111
practices. The aim of this project was to: 1) assess public awareness of tail docking and ear
cropping, 2) determine whether physical alteration of a dog affects how the dog, and 3)
owner are perceived. In Experiment 1 awareness was measured using a combination of
both explicit and implicit measures. We found that 42% of participants (n = 810) were unable
to correctly explain the reason why tail docked and ear cropped dogs had short ears and
tails. Similarly, an implicit measure of awareness (‘nature vs nurture task’), found that the
OPEN ACCESS majority of participants believed short tails and erect ears were a consequence of genetics
Citation: Mills KE, Robbins J, von Keyserlingk MAG rather than something the owner or breeder had done. The results obtained in Experiment 2
(2016) Tail Docking and Ear Cropping Dogs: Public
(n = 392) provide evidence that ear cropped and tail docked dogs are perceived differently
Awareness and Perceptions. PLoS ONE 11(6):
e0158131. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0158131 than an identical dog in its ‘natural’ state. Modified dogs were perceived as being more
aggressive, more dominant, less playful and less attractive than natural dogs. Experiment 3
Editor: Edna Hillmann, ETH Zurich, SWITZERLAND
(n = 410) is the first evidence that owners of modified dogs are perceived as being more
Received: December 3, 2015
aggressive, more narcissistic, less playful, less talkative and less warm compared to own-
Accepted: June 10, 2016 ers of natural dogs. Taken together, these results suggest that although a significant propor-
Published: June 27, 2016 tion of subjects appear unaware of the practices of tail docking and ear cropping in dogs,
Copyright: © 2016 Mills et al. This is an open access
these procedures have significant impacts on how modified dogs and their owners are per-
article distributed under the terms of the Creative ceived by others.
Commons Attribution License, which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original author and source are
credited. Introduction
Data Availability Statement: Data are available from ‘Man’s best friend’, the dog, was domesticated by humans over 15,000 years ago [1] and since
the Figshare database. The DOI for this data is: that time they have remained an important part of society in many cultures around the world.
(https://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.3160669.v1.
From pottery and other artefacts, a pattern of genetic selection can be observed beginning as
Funding: This work was funded through generous late as 7500 years ago [2]. Since then intensive artificial selection has resulted in 152 officially
donations to the UBC Animal Welfare Program. recognized dog breeds [3]; which vary drastically both morphologically and behaviourally. It is
Competing Interests: The authors have declared estimated that 37–47% of households in the United States own a dog, equating to ~70–80 mil-
that no competing interests exist. lion owned dogs [4].
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0158131 June 27, 2016 1 / 14

Tail Docking and Ear Cropping Dogs: Public Awareness and Perceptions
When looking for a potential dog, there are many factors to consider, one of which is per-
sonality [5]. Stephen and Ledger (2007) report that certain personality and behavioural traits
are associated with a higher risk of relinquishment to shelters; some of which include chewing
furniture, aggression, anxiety, fear and excessive barking [6]. Interestingly, there is little corre-
lation between breed popularity and trait desirability. While personality is certainly an impor-
tant factor, popular dog breeds do not display more desirable behaviour, live longer or have
fewer health problems than their less popular counterparts [7]. Although personality may be
an important reason for relinquishment, aesthetics seem to be a key factor in choosing a dog
breed resulting in a dog breed industry that is largely appearance driven [8]. For instance,
potential owners may prefer short-haired dogs to long haired or light coloured fur to dark.
This preference for varied aesthetics in dog breeds is seemingly due to a shift in attitudes to less
emphasis on utility of the animal to more of an aesthetic appeal [7]. This shift resulted in the
formal recognition of ‘breed standards’, some of which were introduced in the 1800s [3]. Breed
standards outline specific physical characteristics, such as color, height, and body conforma-
tion (e.g. see specific breed standards set out by the American Kennel Club (AKC) and the
Canadian Kennel Clubs (CKC)). Along with this focused approach to genetic selection, some
breed standards include specifics regarding the length of the tail or position of the ears; which
in some breeds can only be achieved through surgical removal or alteration (e.g. tail docking
and ear cropping).
In Roman times, dogs had their tails docked as a means to decrease the spread of rabies [9],
while ear cropping was practiced to prevent ear damage during fighting and hunting [10].
Today the reasons given for these surgical alterations include prevention of tail injury [11],
decreased ear infections, breed conformity and a breeder’s right to choose [12]. However, there
is very little research assessing the validity of these assertions [10, 13]. Despite this lack of evi-
dence, ear cropping and tail docking have become defining features of many dog breeds. His-
torically, approximately one third of recognized dog breeds have their tails docked [13], but to
our knowledge there are no reliable estimates of the extent to which both of these procedures
are performed today.
Increasing concern about animals and their welfare has led many to question the practices
of ear cropping and tail docking. Many countries have introduced legislation that restricts, and
in some cases even bans these practices. For example, the European Union Convention for the
Protection of Pet Animals prohibits surgical operations including tail docking and ear cropping
for non-curative purposes [14]. In Israel tail docking is banned for cosmetic purposes whereas
Scotland implemented a complete ban as of 2003 [15]. There is great variation in the amount
of restriction placed on these procedures around the world. In North America, organizations
such as the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and the Canadian Veterinary
Medical Association (CVMA) have official position statements opposing these practices for
cosmetic purposes. As a result, some Canadian provinces (e.g. Newfoundland and Labrador,
British Columbia) and U.S. states (e.g. Pennsylvania, Maryland) have even passed by-laws that
prohibit tail docking and in some cases also ear cropping [10]. Additionally, notable veterinary
textbooks no longer contain ear cropping procedural outlines [16].
Available social science research surrounding these practices has been limited to surveys of
groups very familiar with both practices–namely veterinarians and dog breeders [17]. To our
knowledge this is the first research to assess public awareness of two medically unnecessary
procedures and how they impact perceptions of the modified dogs and their owners. The goals
of our research were threefold: 1) to assess awareness of two medically unnecessary surgeries,
tail docking and ear cropping in dogs, 2) to test whether modified and natural dogs are per-
ceived differently and, 3) to test whether owners of modified and natural dogs are perceived
differently.

This research was approved by the University of British Columbia’s Behavioural Research
Ethics Board protocol # H15-00324. Informed written consent was obtained from all partici-
pants. Participants that did not consent were unable to access the online survey. Consent forms
and recruitment documents outlined methods for maintaining confidentiality and a general
description of the study methods and objectives. All experiments were created using Qualtrics
(Provo, UT) online survey platform.
Materials and Methods

Recruitment
In all three experiments, participants were recruited using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk crowd-
sourcing service (MTurk). MTurk has been shown to result in more diverse samples than tradi-
tional means of recruitment [18,19]. Additionally, MTurk participants are more attentive than
traditional subject pools [20].
Experiment 1
The aim of Experiment 1 was to determine awareness of tail docking and ear cropping in well-
known dog breeds. All participants completed an implicit task followed by an explicit task to
assess their awareness.
Participants
Participants (n = 810) were United States residents with a mean age of 44 years (median 30
years; range 18–68 years); 474 (59%) were men, 336 (41%) were women. Of the total partici-
pants, 318 (39%) were a primary caregiver of a dog.
Procedure
Four dog breeds that are commonly tail docked and ear cropped (Doberman Pinscher, Minia-
ture Schnauzer, Brussels Griffon, Boxer) were chosen as stimuli for this experiment. These
dogs were selected on the basis of their popularity according to AKC dog registration statistics
[21]. Three of these breeds (Doberman, Boxer and Schnauzer) appear in the top 20 registered
dog breeds. The fourth (Brussels Griffon) is not highly ranked (89th) but was selected in order
to include a small ‘toy’ breed. Four full body images of individual dogs, representative of each
breed were obtained from a professional photographer. An example of stimuli used can be seen
in Fig 1.
Implicit measure. Participants were presented with a modified ‘nature vs nurture’ task
used to assess lay beliefs about heredity [22]. Participants were told that they were participating
in a study to test their understanding of heredity in dogs. They were then randomly assigned to
evaluate one of the four dog breeds, accompanied by the statement, “This is [name] he/she is a
4 year old [breed]”. The name and gender of the individual dogs were the same for each breed.
Next, they were presented with a list of 10 traits and asked to rate the extent to which they
thought each trait was the result of either genetic or environmental factors using a 7 point
Likert scale (0 = all genetics; 6 = all environment). Definitions of both genetics and environ-
ment were anchored at scale extremes (genetics: a trait the individual is born with–inherited
from mother and/or father; environment: a trait the individual is not born with–result of being
raised by owner or breeder). The traits participants rated were presented in random order and
included: fur color, aggression towards other dogs, playfulness, fear of people, dominance,
excessive barking, body size, number of teeth, and the two traits of interest- tail length, ear
shape and size.

Fig 1. Example of full body image presented to participants in Experiment 1 to assess participants’ awareness of tail docking
and ear cropping in dog breeds. Four dog breeds used as stimuli include Doberman Pinscher (pictured), Brussels Griffon, Boxer and
Miniature Schnauzer. Photo by Mary Bloom with permission.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0158131.g001
Explicit measure. After completing the nature-nurture task, participants were randomly
assigned to receive two different images of the same breed of dog–one pictured in its natural
state (long tail and ears) and one modified (cropped ears and docked tail). Participants were
told “both of the above dogs are purebred [breed]. In fact, these two dogs are siblings, yet their
ears and tails look very different” and then asked to select which one of the following three
statements best explains this difference in physical appearance. Participants could select from
the following three options:
Option A: Individual dogs of the same breed vary in appearance, meaning some will have tails
and ears of different shapes and sizes.
Option B: Some dog breeds have part of their ears and tails surgically removed after they are
born.
Option C: None of the above.
Options A and B were counterbalanced to minimize order effects. Option C always appeared last.
Finally, participants were asked to provide basic demographic information including age,
gender, income and state of residence, if they were the primary caregiver of a dog and if they,
or anyone they know, owned any of the dog breeds used as stimuli (Doberman Pinscher, Mini-
ature Schnauzer, Boxer, Brussels Griffon).

Experiment 2
Previous research has shown that physical appearance is utilized to make inferences about person-
ality traits of others [23,24]. Experiment 2 sought to test if this is true in the case of dogs as well.
Participants
Participants (n = 392) were United States residents with a mean age of 34 years (median 31
years; range 18–77 years); 241 (61%) were men, 151 (39%) were women. Of the total partici-
pants, 149 (38%) were a primary caregiver of a dog.
Procedure
The same four images used in Experiment 1 were modified by a graphic artist to depict them as
they would appear with their natural tail length and ear conformation (“natural”). Besides the
addition of ears and a tail the images were identical (see Fig 2). In total there were 8 different
images used as stimuli (4 dogs x 2 versions). Participants were randomly assigned to receive
one version (natural or modified) of each breed, for a total of 4 images.
To conceal the aim of our study, participants were told that they would be participating in
an experiment to see whether or not it was possible to accurately predict the personality of dogs
using nothing more than a photograph. We told participants that we had created detailed person-
ality profile for each of the dogs they were about to evaluate and that their evaluations would be
compared to these profiles to see how accurate they were. To further enhance believability, we
also mentioned actual research showing that evaluations of human personality traits based on
very limited information can in fact be accurate [23,24]. Three instructional manipulation check
questions (IMC) were included to ensure that participants had read and understood the instruc-
tions. IMC questions minimize satisficing, increasing the validity of study results [25].
Participants rated each of the four dogs on a 7-point Likert (0 = not at all likely, 6 = extremely
likely). Traits were selected from a previously published dog personality questionnaire [26].
Lastly, participants provided the same basic demographic information as described in
Experiment 1.
Experiment 3
Experiment 2 was designed to determine if participants make different judgments towards
individual dogs, based solely on differences in tail length and ear conformation. To build upon
Fig 2. Example of natural and modified full body images presented to participants in Experiment 2 to assess
participants’ perceptions of ear cropping and tail docking in dogs. Additional dog breeds presented to participants include
Brussels Griffon, Boxer and Miniature Schnauzer. Photo by Mary Bloom with permission.

this, Experiment 3 was designed to determine if owners of modified and natural dogs are per-
ceived differently.
Participants
Participants (n = 420) were United States residents with a mean age 34 years (median 32 years;
range 18–79 years); 235 (56%) were men, 151 (44%) were women.
Procedure
Full body pictures of both a male and a female were used as owner stimuli. This owner stimuli
was used in conjunction with a full body image of a Doberman Pinscher, both the original image
(modified) and altered photo with natural ear and tail conformation (natural) (see Fig 3).
Participants were told that they would be participating in a study assessing whether an indi-
vidual’s choice of pet communicates information about their personality. They were told they
would be presented with a picture of a real person (Karen or Brian) and their pet (Pepper) and
asked to answer a series of questions about the person. Participants were then randomly pre-
sented with a 2x2 design, gender of owner (male or female) and appearance of dog (natural or
modified) were randomly varied. Our dependent variables included two broad dimensions of
social perceptions, warmth and competence, in addition to a pet attachment scale and the
Fig 3. Stimuli presented to participants in Experiment 3 to assess participants’ perception of owners of modified or natural
dogs. Images were randomized to ensure participants received 1) male dog owner with natural (B) or modified (D) Doberman
Pinscher and 2) female dog owner with natural (A) or modified (C) Doberman Pinscher. Owner photos by Vidrio (https://www.flickr.
com/photos/thatrileygirl/) is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/). Dog photo by Mary
Bloom with permission.

Table 1. Personality traits assessed by participants for dog owners’ with natural or modified dogs on
a 7 point Likert scale (0 = not at all; 6 = extremely).
Construct Items Adapted from
Warmth How [. . ...] is Karen/Brian? Ashton- James et al.
[warm, honest, tolerant, sincere, trustworthy] (2014) [27]; Fiske et
al. (2002) [28]
Competence How [. . ...] is Karen/Brian? Cuddy et al. (2004)
[competent, capable, intelligent, confident, [29]; Fiske et al.
independent] (2002) [28]
Pet Karen considers Pepper a member of the family. Gonzalez Ramirez et
Attachment Karen and Pepper have a very close relationship. al. (2014) [30]
Pepper is Karen’s best friend.
Narcissism Karen/Brian is a narcissist. Konrath et al. (2014)
[31]
Experiment 2 How [. . ..] is Karen/Brian? Jones (2009) [26]
traits [aggressive, easily frightened, dominant, playful,
talkative, compliant, attractive]
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0158131.t001
single item narcissism scale (see Table 1). Additionally, we modified questions used in Experi-
ment 2 to assess dog personality traits in order to determine if there were similarities in how
dogs and owners were perceived.
Finally, participants were asked to provide basic demographic information including age,
gender, income and state of residence. Participants were also asked if they are the primary care-
giver of a dog, as well as if they, or anyone they know, own a Doberman Pinscher.
Results
Experiment 1
Implicit measure. Average scores (Mean±SD) were calculated for both tail length and ear
conformation. The average scores for all breeds were 1.87±1.53 and 2.39±2.02 for ear confor-
mation and tail length, respectively, with slight variation within each individual breed (see
Table 2). No other stimuli (e.g. familiarity with dog breeds, age and gender) were significant.
Explicit measure. A majority 58% (n = 469) of participants answered correctly (i.e. “some
dog breeds have part of their ears and tails surgically removed after they are born”) (see
Table 3). Familiarity with dog breeds used as stimuli did not alter the results (P>0.05). Partici-
pants that self-reported as being a caretaker of a dog were more likely to answer the question
correctly than those that were not dog owners, 68% vs 51% respectively. Of female participants
66% answered correctly, compared to 53% of male participants.
Experiment 2
Paired t-test analyses were performed to determine the statistical difference between modified
and natural versions of each breed for each of the traits assessed. Data were analyzed with and
Table 2. Average (Mean±SD) responses obtained from participants (n = 810) when asked whether behavioural/physical dog traits were a result of
genetics or the environment. Participants were asked to rate based on a 7 point Likert scale (0 = all genetics; 6 = all environment).
Trait Miniature Schnauzer Brussels Griffon Boxer Doberman Pinscher All Breeds
Tail length 2.18±1.86 2.10±1.70 2.56±2.15 2.73±2.27 2.39±2.02
Ear conformation 1.61±1.96 1.72±1.27 2.10±1.73 2.03±1.78 1.87±1.53

Table 3. The number (and percentage) of participants that responded when presented with two dogs of the same breed with ear and tail conforma-
tion variation and asked the reason for this. Multiple choice options included a) genetic variation, b) surgical removal after birth or c) none of the above.
Item Genetic variation (%) Surgical removal of ears and tail (%) None of the above (%)
All participants (n = 810) 327 (40.4%) 469 (57.9%) 14 (1.7%)
Gender
Female (n = 336) 112 (33.3%) 220 (65.5%) 4 (1.2%)
Male (n = 474) 215 (45.4%) 249 (52.5%) 10 (2.1%)
Primary caregiver of a dog
Yes (n = 318) 95 (29.9%) 216 (67.9%) 7 (2.2%)
No (n = 492) 232 (47.2%) 253 (51.4%) 7 (1.4%)
without IMC questions and did not have a significant impact on the results. Individual breed
knowledge, age and gender also did not have an impact on the results and thus the responses
from all participants (n = 392) were pooled.
Modified dogs were seen as more aggressive both towards people and towards other dogs
and more dominant than natural dogs (see Table 4). Natural dogs were also reported as more
playful and more attractive than modified dogs. When the traits were analyzed for each breed
individually, responses for the breed types investigated were similar with the exception of the
Miniature Schnauzer (see Table 5).
Experiment 3
Paired t-test analysis was performed to determine the statistical difference between owners of
modified and natural Doberman Pinschers, for each of the traits assessed. Significance was set
at P<0.05. Individual breed knowledge, age and participant gender did not have an impact on
the results (P>0.05) and thus the responses from all participants (n = 420) were pooled. Inter-
nal validity was high for all scales: 0.87 for warmth (5 items), 0.89 for competence (5 items)
and 0.89 for pet attachment (3 items), which allowed us to collapse items.
Overall participants’ perceived owners of modified dogs as being more aggressive, more nar-
cissistic, less playful, less talkative and less warm than owners of natural dogs (see Table 6). We
also noted an effect of gender: the female owner of a modified dog was perceived by partici-
pants as being more aggressive, more dominant, more narcissistic and more competent than
the female owner of a natural dog; whereas the male owner of a modified dog was perceived to
be more narcissistic, less warm and less competent than the male owner of a natural dog (see
Table 7).
Table 4. Mean responses obtained from an Internet based survey from participants (n = 392) when
asked to assess traits for natural and modified dogs. Participants were asked to rate based on a 7 point
Likert scale (0 = not at all; 6 = extremely).
Trait Assessed Natural Modified P value
Aggressive towards people 3.2 3.4 0.0077
Aggressive towards dogs 3.1 3.4 0.0025
Fearful of people 2.9 2.9
Fearful of dogs 2.4 2.5
Dominant over dogs 3.4 3.6 0.0013
Playful 3.9 3.5 <0.0001
Barks excessively 3.7 3.6
Obedient 4.0 4.1
How attractive? 3.7 3.5 0.0222
How old? 4.2 4.4

Table 5. Mean responses obtained from an Internet based survey from participants (n = 392) when asked to assess traits for natural and modified
dogs for each individual breed. Participants were asked to rate based on a 7 point Likert scale (0 = not at all; 6 = extremely).
Trait Assessed Boxer Doberman Pinscher Miniature Schnauzer Brussels Griffon
Nat Mod P-value Nat Mod P-value Nat Mod P-value Nat Mod P-value
Aggressive towards people 2.9 3.5 0.0004 3.4 3.9 0.0079 3.4 3.1 3.0 3.2
Aggressive towards dogs 3.2 3.6 0.0055 3.3 3.8 0.0011 3.3 3.1 2.8 3.0
Fearful of people 2.2 2.3 2.6 2.4 3.1 3.1 3.6 3.7
Fearful of dogs 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.2 2.9 2.7 2.8 3.1
Dominant over dogs 4.3 4.6 0.0480 4.0 4.6 <0.0001 3.2 3.0 1.9 2.4 0.0055
Playful 4.1 3.8 0.0294 3.9 3.3 0.0005 3.4 3.2 4.2 3.7 0.0001
Barks excessively 2.8 2.8 3.1 3.1 4.2 3.8 0.0098 4.7 4.6
Obedient 4.7 4.6 4.8 4.9 3.7 3.7 2.9 3.0
How attractive? 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.1 3.2 3.4 3.1 2.4 0.0001
How old? 4.0 4.0 3.8 3.8 5.4 5.5 3.8 4.3
Discussion
Experiment 1. Our finding from Experiment 1 suggests that many people are simply
unaware that the characteristic look of certain dogs is the result of surgical procedures. When
participants were explicitly asked what explained different ear shape and tail length among
dogs of the same breed slightly more, although a significant minority (42%) believed that tail
length and ear conformation were a consequence of genetic variation. These results suggest
that assessing public attitudes on contentious practices such as ear cropping and tail docking
might be difficult given that a large minority of the individuals appear to be unaware that this
practice takes place. The problem of non-attitudes, defined as a lack of strong or meaningful
opinions on a matter, has been shown to result in attitude instability [32], which in turn can
affect survey results [33]. This may also result in studies failing to truly reflect the publics’ atti-
tude on a particular subject. Awareness studies can improve the ability to assess public attitudes
as it attempts to account and arguably remove participants’ non-attitudes, resulting in more
accurate results.
In the current study we observed that women appeared to be more explicitly aware that tail
docking and ear cropping were not a result of genetic variation. This may be explained in part
by women generally tending to be more involved in animal activism compared to men [34],
which could subsequently mean women are more informed about these procedures. Not
Table 6. Mean responses obtained from an Internet based survey from participants (n = 420) when asked to assess traits of owners with either a
natural or modified dog. Participants were asked to rate based on a 7 point Likert scale (0 = not at all; 6 = extremely).
Trait Assessed Natural Modified P value
Aggressive 4.7 5.1 0.0042
Frightened 2.9 2.9
Dominant 5.3 5.5
Playful 3.8 3.5 0.0197
Talkative 4.5 4.2 0.0275
Compliant 4.1 4.0
Attractive 4.7 4.6
Narcissistic 4.2 4.8 <0.0001
WARMTH (5 measures) 4.4 4.2 <0.0001
COMPETENCE (5 measures) 5.6 5.6
PET ATTACHMENT (3 measures) 5.5 5.4

Table 7. Mean responses obtained from an Internet based survey from participants (n = 420) when asked to assess traits of owners (male or
female) with either a natural or modified dog. Participants were asked to rate based on a 7 point Likert scale (0 = not at all; 6 = extremely).
Trait Assessed Woman Man
Natural Modified P value Natural Modified P value
Aggressive 5.1 5.7 0.0013 4.3 4.5
Frightened 2.6 2.4 4.2 3.3
Dominant 5.8 6.1 0.0443 4.8 4.8
Playful 3.3 3.0 4.3 3.9
Talkative 4.5 4.2 4.6 4.3
Compliant 4.1 3.8 4.2 4.3
Attractive 5.2 5.2 4.2 4.0
Narcissistic 4.4 4.9 0.0115 4.0 4.7 0.0023
WARMTH (5 measures) 4.3 4.1 4.5 4.2 <0.0001
COMPETENCE (5 measures) 5.9 6.1 0.0015 5.3 5.0 0.0012
PET ATTACHMENT (3 measures) 5.4 5.4 5.6 5.4
surprisingly, participants that were also primary caregivers of dogs were also more aware of
these procedures compared to non-caregivers. Participants having no experience with dogs
may be less aware (and arguably less interested in dogs per se) compared to those participants
that did have experience with dogs. Additionally, given the natural variation in the length and
type of tail across breeds, those participants with little experience with dogs may have consid-
ered the lack of the tail as being within the scope of the natural variation observed (e.g. some
breeds such as the Australian Shepherd have naturally short tails).
Experiment 2. Experiment 2 showed that modified dogs are perceived as being more
aggressive, more dominant, less playful and less attractive than dogs in their natural state. This
is in line with other research that shows differences in coat color and ear conformation can
change personality attributes given to dogs [35]. While the aforementioned study investigated
how physical characteristics alter a dogs perceived personality, the current study aimed to
determine if human induced physical characteristics in dogs negatively impact how humans
perceive the dog. This distinction is important as human induced changes may negatively affect
the perception and subsequently treatment of the individual animal.
Many of the traits that were perceived differently are ones that have been shown to predict
both adoptability and relinquishment [36,37]. Reasons cited in support of ear cropping include
supporting the appearance of fierceness or aggressiveness [38]; results of the current study sup-
port this perception. Anecdotally we see this supported in society in articles such as one enti-
tled “11 riskiest dog breeds for homeowners and renters” [39], published by Forbes magazine
in 2012 (Jersey City, NJ) where half of the dogs listed are traditionally tail docked and/or ear
cropped breeds (Pit Bulls, Staffordshire terriers, Doberman Pinscher, Rottweiler, Great Dane,
and Presa Canario). Interestingly the Forbes article also mentions that in the case of these 11
breeds, home insurance rates may increase or in some cases coverage may be denied.
Natural dogs were also perceived by the participants in our study to be more playful and
attractive than modified dogs. Playfulness is an important trait when determining adoptability
[37] and frequently a trait cited by owners as important when making the decision of which
dog breed to buy [40]. This suggests that while the dog breeds used in this study are popular,
they are not perceived to possess characteristics desired by owners (ie playfulness, attractive-
ness) and instead possess traits that typically result in relinquishment (ie aggression). The fact
that the participants perceived the modified dogs to be less attractive than natural dogs is of
interest and contradicts the reasons given by some that tail docking and ear cropping is needed;

specifically, when argued by breeders that these procedures ensure the integrity and beauty of
the dog breed [12]. Questions remain as to why these breeds are popular and if greater aware-
ness that these dogs had undergone surgery to alter the tails and ears would negatively affect
this popularity.
Experiment 3. To our knowledge this is the first study to provide evidence that physically
altered pets affect the perceived personality and behavioural characteristics of their human
owners. Aggression and playfulness were two of the traits used in Experiment 2 when assessing
perception of dogs. In Experiment 2 the modified dogs were seen as less playful and more
aggressive, which was similarly perceived in owners. This suggests that some behavioural traits
perceived by participants in dogs are then reflected in their owners. This result supports the
line of research that owners resemble their pets on some level [41]. In fact, studies have shown
that participants can match dogs with their owners based on static images [42]. Therefore,
increasing a dogs’ perceived aggressiveness by performing ear cropping and tail docking could
in turn increase perceived aggressiveness in the owner which subsequently has the ability to
affect human interactions. Furthermore, owners of modified dogs were perceived as less warm
than owners of natural dogs. There is evidence to suggest that warmth is judged automatically,
before competence, as whether a person appears to be friendly or trustworthy is more evolu-
tionarily important than if they have the ability to act on these traits [43]. For example, viewing
a person as more warm will more likely result in your desire to befriend the person or more
simply approach the person than a person’s competence. In relation to the current study, this
theory suggests that an owner of a modified dog appears more aggressive and less warm, result-
ing in an appearance that is less approachable than owners of a natural dog. Findings such as
this that involve perception differences in personality are not exclusive to companion animals,
in fact research has shown different houses and cars change perception of different gender
roles and social status [44]. This is in line with a study by Wells and Perrine (2001) which
found that a college professor with a dog or cat in their office was perceived as friendlier than if
there was no animal [45].
Owners of a modified dog were also perceived as being more narcissistic than owners of a
natural dog. Narcissism is described as “excessive self-admiration and feelings of superiority”
[46] and narcissistic tendencies in humans having been linked to greater chances of social con-
flicts [47]. Taken together with the warmth and aggression results, it could be suggested that
owners of modified dogs have a greater risk of social conflicts, human interaction complica-
tions and decreased approachability than owners of natural dogs.
General Discussion and Conclusion

Dogs are a large and important part of society today. The current studies suggest that specific
dogs with cropped ears and docked tails can be negatively perceived by the public and in turn
this negative perception is reflected in their owners. In 2012, it was estimated that 70 million
dogs are kept as pets in the United States alone [4]. This is a large number of individuals and
while to our knowledge the number of ear cropped and tail docked dogs is unknown, they are
among the most popular dog breeds [21]. With regards to animal welfare the question arises as
to whether these negative perceptions affect adoptability and relinquishment of these dogs? As
an example, approximately 3.9 million dogs enter shelters every year in the United States [4],
with aggression cited as one of the top reasons for owners to relinquish their pets [6]. However,
while relinquishment may not be a matter of ‘perceived’ personality traits, adoption is. When
looking to adopt a new dog, potential owners are first drawn to appearance [48]. However, if
the adoptable dog in question has cropped ears and a docked tail it can be assumed from the
results of these studies that the potential owner will perceive this dog more negatively and this

dog may be overlooked. Appearance based stereotypes are common in our society and with
pets it is no different. Wright et al. (2007) determined that viewing one individual dog behaving
badly or aggressively affected a person’s perception of the entire breed [49]. Many advocates
for ear cropping and tail docking argue that the pain of the procedure has a very small impact
on the individual. However, the results of this research show that by doing these procedures
the perception and arguably treatment of these individuals is affected for their entire life.
Most interesting is that our findings indicate that by simply eliminating the procedures
from these specific dog breeds we can shift the negative perception. Considering the lack of
awareness of these procedures it appears that at least for those respondents that were unaware,
the negative perception of short ears and short tail is unconsciously recognized. These three
studies collectively provide evidence that human induced changes to a dogs’ appearance can
dramatically affect how the dogs and their owners are perceived, which has the potential to
negatively impact the dog as well as the owner. To our knowledge this is the first study that
addresses the question of whether members of the public are aware that tail length and ear con-
formation of some breeds are a consequence of surgery and subsequently how these surgeries
affect perception of dogs and their owners.
There are some limitations to the experiments presented. The results of these studies are
based on a convenience sample of United States residents and therefore caution should be exer-
cised when making any generalizations. Additionally, the dog breeds used in all three studies
were limited in number and do not include all ear cropped and tail docked breeds. However,
while this does mean that the results cannot be generalized to all dog breeds, we speculate that
the concept could be applied to other breeds but strongly encourage future work to verify our
findings across breeds. Similarly, one weakness with Experiment 3 is that it only used a single
breed, the Doberman Pinscher. Clearly, further work must be done to see whether or not our
findings can be generalized across other breeds that are ear cropped and tail docked to deter-
mine if the type of dog you own affects how others view you.
Taken together, the results of these three studies suggest that although a proportion of the
participants that took our survey appear unaware of the practices of tail docking and ear crop-
ping in dogs, these procedures appear to have profound impacts on how tail docked and ear
cropped dogs and their owners are perceived.
Acknowledgments
We wish thank photographers Mary Bloom and Michael Trafford for providing us with photo-
graphs used in this study and graphic artist Dan Hoffman for his assistance in modifying
images.
Author Contributions
Conceived and designed the experiments: KM JR MvK. Performed the experiments: KM JR.
Analyzed the data: KM. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: MvK. Wrote the paper:
KM MvK JR.
References
1. Wayne RK, von Holdt BM. Evolutionary genomics of dog domestication. Mamm Genome. 2012; 23: 3–
18. doi: 10.1007/s00335-011-9386-7 PMID: 22270221
2. Pedersen N, Liu H, Theilen G, Sacks B. The effects of dog breed development on genetic diversity and
the relative influences of performance and conformation breeding. J Anim Breed Genet. 2013; 130:
236–248. doi: 10.1111/jbg.12017 PMID: 23679949
3. Parker HG, Kim LV, Sutter NB, Carlson S, Lorentzen TD, Malek TB, et al. Genetic structure of the pure-
bred domestic dog. Science. 2004; 204: 1160–1164.

4. American Society of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Pet Statistics. 2015; 8: 13 Available: https://
www.aspca.org/about-us/faq/pet-statistics.
5. Ley J, Bennett P. Measuring personality in dogs. J Vet Behav. 2008; 3: 182.
6. Stephen J, Ledger R. Relinquishing dog owners' ability to predict behavioural problems in shelter dogs
post adoption. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2007; 107: 88–99.
7. Ghirlanda S, Acerbi A, Herzog H, Serpell J. Fashion vs function in cultural evolution: the case of dog
breed popularity. PLOS One. 2013 Sept 11 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0074770
8. Asher L, Diesel G, Summers JF, McGreevy PD, Collins LM. Inherited defects in pedigree dogs. Vet J.
2009; 182: 402–411. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.08.033 PMID: 19836981
9. Swabe J. Veterinary Dilemmas: ambiguity and ambivalence in human-animal interaction. In: Poders-
beck A, Paul E, Serpell J, editors. Companion Animals and Us: Exploring the relationships between
people and pets. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007. pp. 292–312.
10. Mills K, von Keyserlingk MAG, Niel L. A review of medically unnecessary surgeries in companion ani-
mals. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2016; 248:162–171. doi: 10.2460/javma.248.2.162 PMID: 26720081
11. Diesel G, Pfeiffer D, Crispin S, Brodbelt D. Risk factors for tail injuries in dogs in Great Britain. Vet Rec.
2010; 166: 812–817. doi: 10.1136/vr.b4880 PMID: 20581358
12. Council of Docked Breeds. 2010; 3: 6. Available: http://www.cdb.org/.
13. Bennett PC, Perini E. Tail docking in dogs: a review of the issues. Aust Vet J. 2003; 81:208–218. PMID:
15080444
14. Council of Europe. 1987. European convention for the protection of pet animals. Available:
conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/125.htm.
15. Australian Veterinary Association. Surgical alteration to the natural state of animals. Available: www.
ava.com.au/policy/31-surgical-alteration-natural-state-animals.
16. Henderson R, Horne R. The pinna. In: Slatter D, editor. Textbook of small animal surgery Volume 1.
3rd ed. Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier Science; 2003. pp. 1737–1746.
17. Noonan GJ, Rand JS, Blackshaw JK, Priest J. Tail docking in dogs:a sample of attitudes of veterinari-
ans and dog breeders in Queensland. Aust Vet J. 1996; 73:86–88. PMID: 8660219
18. Casler K, Bickel L, Hackett E. Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via
Amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Comput Hum Behav. 2013; 29:
2156–2160.
19. Buhrmester M, Kwang T, Gosling SD. Amazon's mechanical turk: a new source of inexpensive, yet
high-quality, data? Perspect Psychol Sci. 2011; 6: 3–5. doi: 10.1177/1745691610393980 PMID:
26162106
20. Hauser DJ, Schwarz N. Attentive turkers: MTurk participants perform better on online attention checks
than do subject pool participants. Behav Res Methods. 2015. doi: 10.3758/s13428-015-0578-z
21. American Kennel Club. Most popular dog breeds in America. 2013; 1: 22. Available: https://www.akc.
org/reg/dogreg_stats.cfm.
22. Terwogt MM, Hoeksma JB, Koops W. Common beliefs about heredity of human characteristics. Brit J
Psychol. 1993; 84: 499–503.
23. Zebrowitz LA, Collins MA. Accurate social perception at zero acquaintance: The affordances of a Gob-
sonian approach. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 1997; 3: 204–223.
24. Naumann LP, Vazire S, Rentfrow PJ, Gosling SD. Personality judgement based on physical appear-
ance. Pers Soc Psychol B. 2009; 35: 1661–1671.
25. Oppenheimer DM, Meyvis T, Davidenko N. Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to
increase statistical power. J Exp Soc Psychol 2009; 45: 867–872.
26. Jones AC. Development and validation of a dog personality questionnaire PhD Dissertation, University
of Austin, Texas. 2009. Available: http://gosling.psy.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Amanda-
Claire-Jones-Diss-2008.pdf.
27. Ashton-James CE, Richardson DC, Williams AC, Bianchi-Berthouze N, Dekker PH. The Impact of Pain
Behaviors on Evaluations of Warmth and Competence. Pain. 2014; 155: 2656–61. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.
2014.09.031 PMID: 25307197
28. Fiske S, Cuddy A, Glick P, Xu J. A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth
respectively follow from perceived status and competition. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2002; 82: 878–902.
PMID: 12051578
29. Cuddy A J, Fiske ST, Glick P. When professionals become mothers, warmth doesn't cut the ice. Journal
of Social Issues. 2004; 60: 701–718.

30. González Ramírez MT, Quezada Berúmen L, Landero Hernández R. Psychometric Properties of the
Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale: Mexican Version (LAPS-M). Anthrozoos. 2014; 27: 351–359.
31. Konrath S, Meier BP, Bushman BJ. Development and validation of the single item narcissism scale
(SINS). PLOS one. 2014 Aug 5 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0103469
32. Whiteley P. Studies in public opinion: Attitudes: nonattitudes, measurement error and change. Perspect
Pol. 2005: 680–681.
33. Herzog H, Rowan AN, Kossow D. Social attitudes and animals. In: Rowan AN, Salem DJ, editors. The
state of animals 2001 Washington, DC: Humane Society Press; 2001. pp. 55–69.
34. Herzog HA. Gender difference in human-animal interactions: a review. Anthrozoos. 2007; 20: 7–21.
35. Fratkin JL, Baker SC. The role of coat color and ear shape on the perception of personality in dogs.
Anthrozoos. 2013; 26: 125–133.
36. Bollen KS, Horowitz J. Behavioral evaluation and demographic information in the assessment of
aggressiveness in shelter dogs. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2008; 112: 120–135.
37. Mornement KM, Coleman GJ, Toukhsati S, Bennett PC. A review of behavioral assessment protocols
used by Australian animal shelter to determine the adoption suitability of dogs. J Appl Anim Welf Sci.
2010; 13: 1661–1671.
38. Fox M. Taking dogs seriously? Law, Culture and the Humanities 2010; 6: 37–55.
39. Hill C. 11 riskiest dog breeds for homeowners and renters. Forbes Magazine 2012; In: Investing. Avail-
able: http://www.forbes.com/sites/cateyhill/2012/05/30/11-riskiest-dog-breeds-for-homeowners-and-
renters/.
40. Svartberg K. Breed typical behaviour in dogs—Historical remnants or recent constructs. Appl Anim
Behav Sci. 2006; 96: 293–313.
41. Roy M, Christenfeld N. Do dogs resemble their owners? Psychol Sci. 2004; 15: 361–363. PMID:
15102149
42. Nakajima S, Yamamoto M, Yoshimoto N. Dogs look like their owners: replications with racially homoge-
nous owner portraits. Anthrozoos. 2009; 22: 173–181.
43. Fiske ST, Cuddy AJC, Glick P. Universal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and competence.
Trends Cogn Sci 2007; 11: 77–83. PMID: 17188552
44. Belk R, Mayer R, Bahn K. The eye of the beholder: individual differences in perceptions of consumption
symbolism. Adv Consum Res 1982; 9: 523–530.
45. Wells M, Perrine R. Pets go to college: The influence of pets on students’ perceptions of faculty and
their offices. Anthrozoos. 2001; 14:161–168.
46. Park S, Colvin C. Narcissism and discrepancy between self and friends' perception of personality. J
Pers 2014: 279–286.
47. Eamonns R. Narcissism: theory and measurement. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1987; 52: 11–17. PMID:
3820065
48. Weiss E, Miller K, Mohan-Gibbons H, Vela C. Why did you choose this pet? Adopters and Pet Selection
preferences in five animal shelters in the United States. Animal. 2012; 2: 144–159.
49. Wright JC, Smith A, Daniel K, Adkins K. Dog breed stereotype and exposure to negative behavior:
effects on perceptions of adoptability. J Appl Anim Welf Sci. 2007; 10: 255–265. PMID: 17645409

Italian Journal of Animal Science
ISSN: (Print) 1828-051X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjas20
Tail docking and ear cropping in dogs: a short

review of laws and welfare aspects in the Europe
and Turkey
Cagri Caglar Sinmez, Ali Yigit & Gokhan Aslim
To cite this article: Cagri Caglar Sinmez, Ali Yigit & Gokhan Aslim (2017) Tail docking and ear
cropping in dogs: a short review of laws and welfare aspects in the Europe and Turkey, Italian
Journal of Animal Science, 16:3, 431-437, DOI: 10.1080/1828051X.2017.1291284
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1828051X.2017.1291284
© 2017 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.
Published online: 19 Feb 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 9736
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tjas20
ITALIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, 2017
VOL. 16, NO. 3, 431–437
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1828051X.2017.1291284
REVIEW ARTICLE
Tail docking and ear cropping in dogs: a short review of laws and welfare
aspects in the Europe and Turkey
Cagri Caglar Sinmeza, Ali Yigitb and Gokhan Aslimc
a
Department of History of Veterinary Medicine and Deontology, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey; bDepartment of History of
Veterinary Medicine and Deontology, Kafkas University, Kars, Turkey; cDepartment of History of Veterinary Medicine and Deontology,
Aksaray University, Aksaray, Turkey
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Ear cropping and tail docking in domestic dogs are complex issues involving economic, aes- Received 30 May 2016
thetic, welfare and moral considerations. The protagonists of tail docking claim that tails have to Revised 19 November 2016
be docked in order to prevent tail-tip injuries of working dogs in particular hunting dogs in the Accepted 10 January 2017
world and tails could cause problems through wagging in households. In Turkey, dog owners or
KEYWORDS
breeders especially those with Turkish Kangal Shepherd dogs have the ears of their dogs Animal welfare; dogs; ear
cropped to prevent the injuries due to the fights with wolves and other dogs. Additionally, it is cropping; laws; tail docking
believed that injuries from the thorny iron leash are prevented and a better hearing capacity is
warranted next to a better traditional aesthetic appearance. There is scientific evidence that
dogs need their tails for balance and support, also the ear is known to have important functions
in the dog's body as anatomical and physiological and there is no rational reason to support the
cropping of a dog’s ears or docking of their tail. Although both practices are forbidden by law
in Turkey, ear cropping and tail docking are still practiced by a few veterinarians and breeders.
In this study, the physiological and behavioural responses caused by tail docking and ear crop-
ping in dogs are affirmed in terms of scientific evidence and rationale in evaluating animal wel-
fare and laws in Europe and Turkey.
Introduction responsibility of the owners, hence, it cannot be con-

sidered separately from the social and cultural environ-
Definitions and history
ment of humans (Houpt et al. 2007). Evaluating dog
Convenience surgery is the definition of a set of surgi- welfare, the rule of the five freedoms of the Brambell
cal interventions in pets that are not justified from a Committee (1965) should be considered. The five free-
veterinary medical perspective (Quartarone et al. 2012). doms (freedom from hunger and thirst, freedom from
These interventions include tail-docking, ear-cropping, pain, injury and disease, freedom from physical and
de-clawing and de-barking. Tail docking is practiced for thermal discomfort, freedom from fear and distress,
centuries and although it could be painful, it is often and freedom to express natural behaviour) provide
done without any anaesthetics (Johnson 2009). With valuable guidance in dog welfare. The objectives of
tail docking all, or part of an animal’s tail is amputated the present study were to define possible physio-
(Bennett & Perini 2003a). Tail docking is also carried out logical and behavioural responses of various dog
in pigs to prevent tail biting and subsequent ascending breeds to tail docking and ear cropping, to assess the
myelitis and in sheep and cow for hygienic purposes. scientific rationale for these procedures and to discuss
In the cold blood horse type and in many dog breeds the possible impacts of such applications on animal
docking is merely performed for aesthetic purposes welfare and laws in Europe and Turkey.
(Sutherland & Tucker 2011; Sinmez et al. 2016).
Ear cropping and tail docking in domestic dogs are
Rationale and reasons for procedure
complex societal issues involving economic, aesthetic,
welfare and moral aspects (Bennett & Perini 2003b). Dogs have been tail docked and ear cropped for
Pet welfare is without any doubt the primary centuries. The custom of ear cropping emerged
CONTACT Dr. Cagri Caglar Sinmez cagribey6038@hotmail.com, cagribey6038@gmail.com Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Erciyes University, Kayseri
38039, Turkey
This study was presented as an oral presentation at "The International Conference on Science, Ecology and Technology I", Vienna, Austria 26th August
2015 and published in proceedings book’s 160th page.
ß 2017 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which
permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
432 C. C. SINMEZ ET AL.
among early Turkish societies (Yilmaz 2013). This Welfare aspects

custom still is lively present in Central Asian Turkish
In evaluation of the techniques of tail docking and ear
Republics and ears of shepherd dogs are cropped
cropping the assessment of acute pain during the pro-
together with tail docking. In ancient Anatolia, tails
cedure and postoperative pain is the key issue.
were docked since it was believed that long tails
Behavioural indicators of pain, such as a resistance to
hindered the olfactory senses when shepherd
come in contact with a painful stimulus and distress
dogs put their noses underneath their tails while
vocalisations, are often utilised, as are physiological
sleeping thereby interfering with their guarding
indicators, such as a raised concentration of plasma
tasks. Over the last decades, tail docking had
cortisol or corticosterone, and increased heart rate
already been quitted on shepherd dogs in Anatolia
(Bennett & Perini 2003a). Next to these physiologic
(Yilmaz 2008).
parameters, the behaviours and parameters from
In England, tail docking became common practice
neurobiology must be considered for a sufficient com-
in 1786 when a tax was levied upon non-working
prehension of the nature of pain in animals (Webster
dogs. Tails of dogs were docked to indicate their
working status and hence were untaxed. Although 1998).
later the taxing on non-working dogs was withdrawn, Acute pain is present within seven days during the
tail docking remained common practice for aesthetic postoperative period. Pain of more than 7 days is
reasons or supposed prevention of tail injuries and defined as prolonged pain and over three months is
improved hygiene (Festa 2009). Formerly, about one defined as chronic or resistant postoperative pain
third of the dog breeds were tail docked just by trad- (Ceyhan & Gulec 2010). Several studies showed that
ition. The protagonists of tail docking worldwide tail docking causes acute pain and distress in lambs,
claim that tails must be docked for various reasons. piglets and calves (Lester et al. 1991; Molony & Kent
Docking should prevent tail-tip injuries of hunting 1993; Lester et al. 1996). These results strongly suggest
dogs and prevents tails caught by bushes or thickets. that docking of dogs’ tails also causes acute pain.
In households docking is supposed to prevent tail Extrapolation of study results from production animal
injuries caused by wagging. Other less transparent to pets may be hampered by different applied techni-
reasons include ease of control of terriers in dog ques. In production animals banding rather than dock-
shelters or other closed facilities, to prevent rabies, to ing the tails by surgical amputation is common
provide a more wild appearance to dogs and to pre- practise. It could be argued, therefore, that the acute
vent abandonment of puppies (Morton 1992; Bennett pain responses observed in agricultural animals is
& Perini 2003a; Ritter 2008). It has also been stated caused by the constant pressure of the elastic bands
that tail docking prevents or decreases potential pile on nociceptors in the skin at the site of application,
up of faeces around the tail. Faeces sticking around and that a shorter acute pain response might be
the tail according to dog owners result in fly irrita- expected following the rapid surgery typically used to
tions and worm invasion (Noonan et al. 1996a). A dock dogs (Bennett & Perini 2003a). According to Kent
study carried out in Southwest Nigeria showed that et al. (1993), surgical docking might result in more
breeders mostly docked the tails for traditional rea- acute pain and more prolonged distress than does
sons such as well-appearance and better hygiene, to banding procedure in lambs.
ease mating, to increase aggression and to prevent Dogs and lambs are two different animal species in
injuries (Fadeyemi 2014). The main reason for tail terms of neurological development and pain sensitivity
docking today is for aesthetic purposes (Quartarone at certain ages. Dogs, like most carnivores, are born in
et al. 2012). a much less-developed state than are most herbivores.
The situation in Turkey is not different from else- Whereas a 3 to 5 days old lamb exhibits a well-devel-
where, especially the dog owners and breeders of the oped nervous system and complex behavioural reper-
Turkish Kangal Shepherd dogs crop the ears of their toire, young pups of the same age have few fully
animals to prevent that during wolf attacks or fights functional sensory organs and exhibit very few behav-
with other dogs the ears are grabbed. Furthermore, iours (Bennett & Perini 2003a). Dogs are typically
the owners also believe that long ears are prone to docked between 3 and 5 days of age, whereas lambs
get injured by thorny iron leash or have reduced hear- are sometimes docked much later ages. At a later age
ing ability. Fly strike on an injured ear in summer it might be expected that, since sensory and percep-
months would be less in cropped dogs. Finally, the tive processes are more developed, any pain associ-
traditional aesthetic appearance is warranted by crop- ated with docking may be intensified in all animal
ping (Sinmez & Yasar 2013). species. In lambs less than one week old, tail docking
ITALIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE 433
using a banding technique caused distress for approxi- practice of tail docking in dogs compromises commu-
mately thirty minutes, as indicated by both behav- nication repertoires both for the signaller and receiver
ioural measures and plasma cortisol levels (Molony & (Leaver & Reimchen 2008).
Kent 1993). Leaver and Reimchen (2008) studied dog responses
Tail docking is usually performed in puppies at an to robot dog models with four different tail positions
age of 3–4 days. Some authors believe that docking at (long still/long wagging, short still/short wagging)
later ages aggravates docking-induced pains because were measured and nine different behavioural varia-
of developed emotional and perceptual processes of bles were compared. Dogs expressed the highest level
the dogs (Bennett & Perini 2003a). On the other hand, of interaction with long-tailed robot dog models. Dogs
puppies have the lowest nociceptive thresholds and responded more to long wagging tailed robot dog
thus should experience more pain than the adult dogs models than short still or short wagging tailed models,
(Moffett 2007). For many years, it has been believed large size dogs got close to long wagging tailed mod-
that due to the myelinisation in newborn was not els more. Researchers ultimately concluded that tail
completed, their nervous system had not developed docking weakened conspecific interactions.
sufficiently to store pain experiences. Owing to this The perception of owner of pain in puppies at tail
concept, tail docking was traditionally performed with- docking was asked to 100 dog owners 25% replied
out anaesthesia or analgesics. However, studies in the that pups do not feel pain, 57% replied that docking
last 20 years have proved this concept as totally resulted in mild pain (Noonan et al. 1996a). Johnson
wrong. Neonatal male dogs and rodent pups have a (2009) investigated people’ attitudes toward elective
hyper pain sensitivity implicating that the pain experi- surgeries for pets including the controversial cosmetic
enced is more intense than less as previously believed. procedures of tail docking and ear cropping of dogs.
It was also accepted that the incomplete myelinisation Many participants disagreed with the procedures of
of newborns does result in slower nerve conduction, tail docking/ear cropping of dogs based on the idea
but the shorter distance that pulses travel counter bal- that it was cruel and painful. Noonan et al. (1996b)
ance slower nerve conduction (Yilmaz et al. 2002; monitored the changes in behaviour of 50 Dobermans,
Derebent & Yigit 2006). Nociceptive cells are mature at Rottweilers and Bouviers pups during and after tail
birth, but the inhibitory pathway, which is critical in docking and observed that dogs exhibited shrieking
modulating pain and reflex activity to pain and dis- and whimpering behaviour during the tail docking.
tress is still undeveloped until at least ten days after Shrieking and whimpering sounds decreased after
birth, thus pain is translated at a higher level and not 30 min and pups completely stopped vocalizations
a lower (Dincer et al. 2011). after 138 minutes, almost all experienced severe pain
In particular, the tail is known to convey crucial for short periods.
information on motivational state and intent through Darke et al. (1985) studied predisposing factors for
complex interactions of its movement, position and tail injuries in 12,000 dogs of a university hospital popu-
size (Leaver & Reimchen 2008; Artelle et al. 2011). The lation. These authors could not observe significant dif-
position and motion of dog’s tail provide information ferences in tail injury ratios between undocked and
including friendliness, playfulness, fear, submission, docked dogs. In contrast, Houlton (2008) found for
dominance and aggression (Wansborough 1996; Coren English springer and cocker spaniels that there was a
2000). Quaranta et al. (2007) found that dogs wag strong association between tail injuries and being
their tails asymmetrically as a function of their motiv- undocked. Furthermore, that study suggests that dogs
ational state. When dogs see a tail wagging to the with docked tails were less likely to sustain a tail injury.
right they are more relaxed, when the wag is to the Characteristics risk factors for tail injury in dogs in Great
left they become more stressed (Artelle et al. 2011). Britain are dogs breed, tail wag angle and docking sta-
Tails are important both in visual and olfactory signal- tus. Despite these facts, it was deduced that the risk of
ling because they carry scent glands (Hughes 1998). tail damage was just 0.2% (Diesel et al. 2010).
Also, one study using camera and electro myographic Following docking, post-docking atrophy, pelvic
imaging confirmed that tail movements were import- muscle degeneration and risk for phrenic muscle
ant in maintaining body balance during locomotion integrity, increasing perineal hernia and faecal-urine
(Wada et al. 1993). Docking likely decreases effective incontinence problems may be observed in dogs
interaction of the dogs with each other. Increased (Wansborough 1996; Bennett & Perini 2003a). A survey
social derangements may result in more aggressive with participation of 168 dog breeders in Northern
behaviour of docked dogs (Wansborough 1996; Nigeria revealed the most frequent post-docking com-
Bennett & Perini 2003a). Thus, the continued cultural plications as infection/necrosis (36.9%), self-mutilation
(20.2%), increased aggression (8.3%), attack by other anaesthesia), and/or perform the surgery better than
dogs (5.4%), nervous signs (2.8%) and increased ten- would the client (Morgan 2009).
dency to sleep (1.8%) (Fadeyemi 2014). One study According to Australian National Kennel Council
showed a clear association between acquired incom- (2002), tail docking should be performed either by a
petence of the urethral sphincter in both dogs and veterinarian or experienced breeders or by anyone
bitches to an overrepresentation of docked breeds, under the supervision of experienced breeders.
specifically the Old English Sheepdog, Rottweiler, Although tail docking is legal in Australia, some veteri-
Doberman Pinscher, Weimaraner and Irish Setter (Holt narians refuse to perform tail docking and other per-
& Thrusfield 1993). form tail docking just to prevent injuries resulting
A study carried out in a veterinary faculty clinic with from tail docking of inexperienced people. Tail docking
228 dogs admitted to surgery between the year 1995 is legal in the United Kingdom provided that it is per-
and 2000 showed that the most common surgical dis- formed by a veterinarian and also largely legal in the
eases were ear diseases 11% of the case load (Elma USA (Bennett & Perini 2003a).
1992). In another study carried out between the years After tail docking was banned in the European
1998 and 2002 with 613 dogs of Gemlik region, the Union in 1998, the ban was proposed and endorsed by
most common surgical problems were cropped ear the World Veterinary Association and the World
wounds and other ear diseases (12%) (Sagliyan & Han Organisation for Animal Health and national veterinary
2003). Yilmaz (2008) indicated that the function of the organisations. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons
auricle is to prevent eardrum from dust, soil, garbage, considers docking of dogs' tails to be an unjustified
dirt-like extraneous substances, fly and mosquito-like mutilation and unethical unless done for therapeutic or
insects, wind, snow and rainfall-like natural events and acceptable prophylactic reasons (Hughes 1998). The
also indicated that the most commonly ear cropped World Small Animal Veterinary Association (2001), The
Turkish Kangal Shepherd dogs performed their tasks American Veterinary Medical Association (2005),
quite well. However, no evidence can be found that ear Canadian Veterinary Medical Association (2005) indicate
cropping successfully prevents or treats ear infections. that aesthetic tail docking is not medically beneficial
and behaviourally harmful and unnecessary and they
all carry out studies along with these opinions.
Legislation and regulations
Today, many countries ban cropping and docking
The controversy over legally forbidding tail docking because they consider the practices unnecessary, pain-
and ear cropping of companion dogs originated ful, and cruel or mutilation. In Europe, the cropping of
already in the nineteenth century Britain (Delafenêtre ears is prohibited in all countries that have ratified the
2009). Similar discussions went on in several other European Convention for the Protection of Pet
developed countries between the ear cropping and Animals. Some countries that ratified the convention
tail docking protagonists and their antagonists. made exceptions for tail docking. Tail docking has
Veterinary associations and welfare organisations, typ- been banned completely in a number of countries
ically want the practice to be banned, whereas dog including the Austria, Norway, Sweden, Denmark,
breeding associations and Kennel clubs vigorously Cyprus, Scotland, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Finland,
oppose the anti-docking legislation. Some veterinar- Italy, Germany, Poland and Slovenia etc. (Table 1). In
ians claim that docking could be performed through France, Hungary, Portugal and Serbia, it is still permit-
painless and proper methods to prevent serious tail ted. In Germany, tail docking was prohibited in 2006
injuries of working dogs while others claim that dock- but it is still permitted for medical reasons (with veter-
ing still remains a cruelty anyhow since it deprived inary justification) and for some gundog breeds
dogs from a significant interaction tool (Bennett & (Lefebvre et al. 2007). Czech Republic allows tail dock-
Perini 2003b; Fadeyemi 2014). ing without anaesthesia only in pups younger than
Many veterinarians believed that tail docking is an eight days. Operations are implemented within fore-
unacceptable procedure in general but particularly seen time periods by authorised personnel
unacceptable in non-purebred dogs because these (Quartarone et al. 2012). In Spain, docking is still per-
dogs were not used as show animals. However, other formed because the national law permits mutilations
veterinarians felt that tail docking was reasonable, for breed standard requirements. Non-therapeutic tail
especially for some dogs to fulfil a breed standard or docking and ear cropping are banned in some sec-
to reduce harms to people. Some veterinarians agreed tions of Spain (Houpt et al. 2007).
to perform the surgery because they would perform The Animal Welfare Act 2006 banned tail docking in
the procedure more humanely (by using local England and Wales other than for medical reasons and
Table 1. Legal status of tail docking by European countries. of age. However, European Union has not drafted any
Ban/restriction directives and regulations about tail docking, ear crop-
Country Banned Exceptions date
ping and other convenience surgical operations.
Austria Yes Some dog breeds 2005
Belgium Yes 2006 The bans on these operations exist only in a “The
Bosnia Restricted Can only be done vets 2009 European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals”
Bulgaria Yes 2005
Croatia Yes 2006 (ETS No. 125) which is an International Agreement of
Cyprus Yes 2001 European Council (Sozer 2007). Turkey signed this
Czech Rep. Restricted Older than 8 days 1992
Denmark Yes Some gundog breeds 1996 agreement on 18 November 1999 and put into force on
Estonia Yes 2000 24 June 2004. According to 5199 numbered Protection
Finland Yes 1996
France No – of Animals Act (2004), surgical operations to alter the
Germany Yes Some gundog breeds 2006 appearance of domestic pets and other non-therapeutic
Greece Yes 1991
Hungary No – operations of tail docking and ear cropping are banned.
Iceland Yes 2001 However, an exemption was made for non-therapeutic
Ireland Yes 2014
Italy Yes 2010 operations approved by a veterinarian for medical pur-
Latvia Yes Some dog breeds 2010 poses and for the benefit of a specific animal.
Lithuania Yes 2012
Luxembourg Yes 1991
Netherlands Yes 2001
North Ireland Yes Some dog breeds 2011 Conclusions
Norway Yes 1987
Poland Yes 2003 The authors could not find evidence-based supporting
Portugal No – studies that show a welfare benefit of ear cropping or
Romania Yes 2001
Scotland Yes 2006 tail docking of dogs, nor could they construct logical
Serbia No – reasons to support this practice. Therefore, aesthetical
Slovakia Yes 2003
Slovenia Yes 2007 or traditional reasons do not justify the pain and dis-
Spain Part 2007 tress that are caused by the procedure. Next to pain,
Sweden Yes 1989
Switzerland Yes 1988 tail docking hinders effective inter-dog communication
Turkey Yes 2004 to a certain degree. Furthermore, dogs need their tails
England Yes Some working dog breeds 2006
for balance and support. Although banned by law in
Turkey, ear cropping and tail docking are still practised
with exemptions for certain types of working dog
by both some veterinarians and breeders. This fact
(Hunt, Spaniel and Terrier). It also became illegal to
makes clear that it is necessary to change the mentality
show dogs docked on or after the commencement of
of a sub group of veterinarians. In order to be per-
the Act (6th April 2007 in England/28th March 2007 in
ceived as caring professionals and guardians of animal
Wales) at events where members of the public pay to
welfare and veterinary societies, proficient veterinaries
enter. An exemption was granted for dogs that are
should refrain from tail docking and ear cropping. Only
demonstrating their working ability only (Delafenêtre
than the veterinary profession as a whole can show
2010; Animal Welfare Foundation Guidance 2013). The
their responsibility, ethics conduct and deontological
exemption allows certain types of working dog to
attitude. Furthermore, greater public awareness must
have their tails docked by a veterinary surgeon. The
be created by educating pet owners about welfare
dog has to be no more than five days old and the vet-
aspects and the impact on health of these practices.
erinary surgeon must certify that he or she has seen
evidence that the dog is likely to work in one of the
specified areas (Diesel et al. 2010). A statement must Disclosure statement
also be made to prove that the dog is intended to The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone
work in one of the specified areas (e.g. shooting, pest are responsible for the content and writing of this article.
control, emergency rescue, armed forces, police), as
described in “The Docking of Working Dogs’ Tails
References
(England) Regulations” (2007). Similar legislation has
also been passed in Northern Ireland with some vari- American Veterinary Medical Association. 2005. [Internet].
[cited 2015 May 15]. Available from: https://www.avma.
ation in the detail of exemption (Welfare of Animals
org/News/JAVMANews/Pages/081215c.aspx
Regulations 2012). Animal Welfare Foundation Guidance. 2013. The practical
In Europe, ears of pups are cropped based on breed and legal approach to the docked puppy [Internet]. [cited
and health conditions when the pups are 6–12 weeks 2015 Feb 25]. Available from: http//www.bva-awf.org.uk
Artelle KA, Dumoulin LK, Reimchen TE. 2011. Behavioural dog welfare issues in the US, Japan, Czech Republic, Spain
responses of dogs to asymmetrical tail wagging of a and the UK. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 106:221–233.
robotic dog replica. Laterality. 16:129–135. Hughes P. 1998. Dogs: research paper 98/6. Science and
Australian National Kennel Council. 2002. Code of practice environment section. UK: House of Commons Library.
for the tail docking of dogs [Internet]. [cited 2015 Feb 17]. Johnson J. 2009. Dogs, cats, and their people: the place of
Available from: http://www.ankc.aust.com the family pet and attitudes about pet keeping [Master
Bennett PC, Perini E. 2003a. Tail docking in dogs: a review of thesis]. Canada: University of Waterloo.
the issues. Aust Vet J. 81:208–218. Kent JE, Molony V, Robertson IS. 1993. Changes in plasma
Bennett PC, Perini E. 2003b. Tail docking in dogs: can atti- cortisol concentration in lambs of three ages after three
tude change be achieved? Aust Vet J. 81:277–282. methods of castration and tail docking. Res Vet Sci.
Brambell Committee. 1965. Report of the Technical 55:246–251.
Committee to Enquire into The Welfare of Animals Kept Leaver SDA, Reimchen TE. 2008. Behavioural responses of
under Intensive Livestock Husbandry Systems (Brambell Canis familiaris to different tail lengths of a remotely-con-
Report). Command Paper 2836, Her Majesty’s Stationery trolled life-size dog replica. Behaviour. 145:386–388.
Office Publication, London: UK. Lefebvre D, Lips D, Giffroy JM. 2007. The European conven-
Canadian Veterinary Medical Association. 2005. Cosmetic sur- tion for the protection of pet animals and tail docking in
gery animal welfare position statement [Internet]. [cited dogs. Rev Off Int Epizoot. 26:619–628.
2015 Jul 12]. Available from: http://www.canadianveteri- Lester SJ, Mellor DJ, Holmes RJ, Ward RN, Stafford KJ. 1996.
narians.net/documents/cosmetic-alter-ation Behavioural and cortisol responses of lambs to castration
Ceyhan D, Gulec MS. 2010. Postoperatif ag rı sadece nosisep- and tailing using different methods. NZ Vet J. 44:45–54.
rı mıdır? Ag
tif ag rı. 22:47–52. Lester SJ, Mellor DJ, Ward RN, Holmes RJ. 1991. Cortisol
Coren S. 2000. How to speak dog. New York (NY): The Free responses of young lambs to castration and tailing using
Press. different methods. NZ Vet J. 39:134–138.
Darke PG, Thrusfleld MV, Aitken CG. 1985. Association Moffett C. 2007. Tail docking: the long and the short of it.
between tail injuries and docking in dogs. Vet Rec. Irish Vet J. 60:718–719.
116:409. Molony V, Kent LE. 1993. Behavioural responses of lambs of
Delafenêtre, D. ed. 2009. Landseer’s ethics: the campaign to three ages in the first three hours after three methods of
end "Cosmetic Surgery" on dogs in Australia. In Carrol castration and tail docking. Res Vet Sci. 55:236–245.
Gigliotti, Leonardo’s choice: genetic technologies and Morgan CA. 2009. Stepping up to the plate: animal welfare,
animals. Netherlands: Springer. veterinarians, and ethical conflicts [PhD thesis]. Canada:
Delafenêtre D. 2010. The divided kingdom: inconsistency University of British Columbia.
in the UK legislation restricting the tail docking of dogs. J Morton D. 1992. Docking of dogs: practical and ethical
Critic Anim Stud. 8:8–46. aspects. Vet Rec. 131:301–306.
Derebent E, Yigit R. 2006. Yenidog anlarda ag rı: Noonan GJ, Rand JS, Blackshaw JK. 1996a. Tail docking in
Deg erlendirme ve yo €netim. CU € Hemş Y€uk Derg. 10:41–48. dogs: a sample of attitudes of veterinarians and dog
Diesel G, Pfeiffer D, Crispin S, Brodbelt D. 2010. Risk factors breeders in Queensland. Aust Vet J. 73:86–88.
for tail injuries in dogs in Great Britain. Vet Rec. Noonan GJ, Rand JS, Blackshaw JK, Priest J. 1996b.
166:812–817. Behavioural observations of puppies undergoing tail dock-
Dincer S, Yurtcu M, Gunel E. 2011. Yenidog anlarda ag rı ve ing. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 49:335–342.
nonfarmakolojik tedavi. SU Tıp Derg. 27:46–51. Protection of Animals Act. 2004. Official Journal of the
Docking of Working Dogs’ Tails (England) Regulations. 2007. Republic Turkey [Internet]. [cited 2015 Sep 24]. Available
Official Journal of the England [Internet]. [cited 2015 April from: http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2004/07/
29]. Available from: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/ 20040701.htm
2007/1120/pdfs/uksi_20071120_en.pdf Quaranta A, Siniscalchi M, Vallortigara G. 2007. Asymmetric
Elma E. 1992. Selçuk u €niversitesi veteriner faku€ltesi cerrahi tail-wagging responses by dogs to different emotive stim-
klinigine 1985–1990 yılları arasında getirilen hastalıklara uli. Curr Biol. 17:199–201.
toplu bir bakış. SU€ Vet Fak Derg. 8:58–60. Quartarone V, Voslarova E, Russo M, Dolezelova P, Passantino
Fadeyemi AJ. 2014. Tail docking in dogs: evaluation of cur- A. 2012. A comparison of laws preventing unnecessary
rent practices and ethical aspects in southwest Nigeria. J canine cosmetic surgery in Italy and in the Czech
Vet Med Anim Health. 6:18–24. Republic. Acta Vet Brno. 81:83–88.
Festa L. 2009. Person, animal, thing: The 1796 dog tax and Ritter CR. 2008. Animal rights. Minnesota (MN): ABDO
the right to superfluous things. Eighteenth-Cent Life. Publishing.
33:1–44. Sagliyan A, Han MC. 2003. 1998-2002 yılları arasında Gemlik
Holt PE, Thrusfield MV. 1993. Association in bitches between ve bo €lgesinde ko €peklerde karşılaşılan cerrahi hastalıkların
breed, size, neutering and docking, and acquired urinary toplu bir deg erlendirilmesi. Dog
u Anadolu Bo €l Araş Derg.
incontinence due to incompetence of the urethral sphinc- 2:88–90.
ter mechanism. Vet Rec. 133:177–180. Sinmez CC, Yasar A. 2013. Turkish shepherd dog Kangal in
Houlton JE. 2008. A survey of gundog lameness and injuries Sivas folklore. J World Turks. 5:193–214.
in Great Britain in the shooting seasons 2005/2006 and Sinmez CC, Yigit A, Ulger I, Yasar A. 2016. Tail docking and
2006/2007. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol. 21:231–237. ear cropping in ruminants: a comparison of welfare
Houpt KA, Goodwin D, Uchida Y, Baranyiova E, Fatjo J, aspects in the World and Turkey. J Fac Vet Med Univ
Kakuma Y. 2007. Proceedings of a workshop to identify Erciyes. 13:58–69.
Sozer SM. 2007. Hayvan haklari mevzuati. Ankara: Turkey: and Miscellaneous Amendments) [Internet]. [cited 2015
Adalet Yayınevi. May 14]. Available from: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/
Sutherland MA, Tucker CB. 2011. The long and short of it: a nidsr/2012/9780337988134
review of tail docking in farm animals. Appl Anim Behav World Small Animal Veterinary Association. 2001. WSAVA Tail
Sci. 135:179–191. Docking Position Statement [Internet]. [cited 2015 Apr 18].
Wada N, Hori H, Tokuriki M. 1993. Electromyographic and Available from: www.wsava.org/taildock.htm
kinematic studies of tail movements in dogs during Yilmaz G, Gurakan B, Saatci U. € 2002. Topuk kanı alınma
treadmill locomotion. J Morphol. 217:105–113. sonrası bebeklerin ag lama su€relerine etki eden fakto €rler.
Wansborough RK. 1996. Cosmetic tail docking of dogs. Aust Çocuk Sag Hast Derg. 45:232–236.
Vet J. 74:59–63. Yilmaz O. 2008. Kangal T€ urk Çoban Ko€peg i. Istanbul: Bilge
Webster AJF. 1998. What use is science to animal welfare? Ku€ltu
€r Sanat Publishing.
Naturwissenschaften. 85:262–269. Yilmaz O. 2013. T€ urk Kangal çoban ko €peg
i ile tarihe nostaljik
Welfare of Animals Regulations. 2012. Official Journal of the bir yolculuk. T€
urk D€uny Tar Derg. 53:45–52.
Northern Ireland no: 387 (Docking of Working Dogs' Tails

Ear Trimming - Kelompok 1 - Kelas D

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Ear Trimming - Kelompok 1 - Kelas D

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

TUGAS ILMU BEDAH KHUSUS VETERINER

“TEKNIK OPERASI EAR TRIMMING PADA ANJING”

FAKULTAS KEDOKTERAN HEWAN

Seiring dengan berkembangnya teknologi dan ilmu pengetahuan, trend dari

As technology and science develop, the trends of cosmetic surgery are

Keywords: cosmetic surgery, ear, surgery techniques, ear trimming, dogs.

Denpasar, 12 September 2019

BAB II. TUJUAN DAN MANFAAT PENULISAN 3

BAB III. TINJAUAN PUSTAKA 4

BAB IV. PEMBAHASAN 8

Gambar 3.1 Diagram Skematis Telinga Luar, Tengah, dan Internal

1.1 Latar Belakang

adalah masalah sosial yang kompleks yang melibatkan aspek ekonomi,

1.2 Rumusan Masalah

2.1 Tujuan Penulisan

2.2 Manfaat Penulisan

2.2.2 Manfaat praktis

3.1 Anatomi Fisiologis Telinga Anjing

3.2 Definisi dan Fungsi Ear Trimming pada Anjing

Gambar 3.2 Anjing yang Melakukan Ear Trimming

Pembedahan ear trimming ini banyak menuai kontroversi karena

Ear trimming dilakukan untuk beberapa trah anjing seperti

4.1.2 Persiapan Alat dan Bahan Operasi

4.1.3 Persiapan Hewan yang akan Dioperasi

4.1.4 Persiapan Operator dan Co-Operator

4.2 Teknik Operasi Ear Trimming

Gambar 4.1 Proses Ear Trimming

Terdapat banyak metode yang dapat digunakan untuk melakukan operasi

4.3 Perawatan Pasca Operasi Ear Trimming

Gambar 4.2 Penggunaan Elizabeth Collar Pasca Operasi

Practical Otic Anatomy and Physiology of the Dog and

Article in Veterinary Clinics of North America Small Animal Practice · November 2012

Brad L Njaa Lynette K Cole

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Case Report View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Vet Clin Small Anim 42 (2012) 1109–1126

THE EXTERNAL EAR

THE TYMPANIC MEMBRANE

The tympanic membrane is a semitransparent three-layer membrane. The tympanic

THE MIDDLE EAR

promontory is located opposite to the mid-dorsal aspect of the tympanic membrane.

THE AUDITORY TUBE

THE INTERNAL EAR

THE VESTIBULAR SYSTEM

Vestibular function and dysfunction is covered more extensively elsewhere in this

View publication stats

Tail Docking and Ear Cropping Dogs: Public

PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0158131 June 27, 2016 1 / 14

PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0158131 June 27, 2016 2 / 14

Materials and Methods

PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0158131 June 27, 2016 3 / 14

PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0158131 June 27, 2016 4 / 14

PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0158131 June 27, 2016 5 / 14

PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0158131 June 27, 2016 6 / 14

PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0158131 June 27, 2016 7 / 14

PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0158131 June 27, 2016 8 / 14

PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0158131 June 27, 2016 9 / 14

PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0158131 June 27, 2016 10 / 14

General Discussion and Conclusion

PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0158131 June 27, 2016 11 / 14

PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0158131 June 27, 2016 12 / 14

PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0158131 June 27, 2016 13 / 14