Received: 28 March 2017

| Accepted: 19 July 2017

DOI: 10.1111/vsu.12743

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Complications associated with surgical dehorning in goats:

A retrospective study of 239 cases

Amanda K. Hartnack DVM, MS, Diplomate ACVS-LA | Molly E. Jordan BS |

Allen J. Roussel DVM, MS, Diplomate ACVIM

Department of Large Animal Clinical

Sciences, School of Veterinary Medicine,
Texas A&M University, College Station,
Texas
Correspondence
Amanda Katherine Hartnack, Department
of Large Animal Clinical Sciences,
School of Veterinary Medicine, Texas
A&M University, Mail Stop 4475,
College Station, TX 77843-4475.
Email: ahartnack@cvm.tamu.edu
Abstract
Objective: This article describes complications following surgical dehorning of
goats.
Study design: Retrospective. Medical records of goats that underwent surgical
dehorning were reviewed.
Animals: Two hundred thirty-nine goats.
Methods: The medical records of 239 goats, not previously dehorned by other meth-
ods, that were cosmetically dehorned between January 2006 and April 2016, were
reviewed. Data retrieved from the medical records included breed, weight, the sur-
geon performing the procedure, intraoperative complications, and the occurrence of
return visits to the teaching hospital because of complications related to the dehorning
procedure. The owner of record then completed a standard questionnaire during a
telephone interview.
Results: One or more complications following the surgical dehorning procedure
were reported in 93/239 (38.91%) of goats. Complications were divided into major
and minor categories. Eighty-four of 239 goats (35.14%) had minor complications,
3/239 goats (1.26%) experienced major complications, and 6/239 (2.51%) had
both major and minor complications. The mean weight of goats with complica-
tions was 29.73 kg compared to 24.91 kg for goats without complications. This
difference was statistically significant (P 5 .015).
Conclusion: Surgical dehorning of goats results in a high rate of complications;
however, the majority of these complications are minor and do not affect health and
performance of the goats. Goats experiencing complications weighed significantly
more than goats without complications.
Clinical significance: Surgical dehorning of goats requires minimal aftercare and
results in a low rate of serious complications.

1 | INTRODUCTION appearance of decapitation.”2 The surgical dehorning proce-

Surgical dehorning with primary wound closure in goats was
first described in 1991.1 Prior to this, incisions were ban-
daged and left to heal by second intention, resulting in an
open sinus and giving what has been described as “the
dure involves primary closure of the incision, potentially
reducing risk of sinusitis and decreasing both healing time
and amount of aftercare required. Goats undergo disbudding
or dehorning procedures for a variety of reasons, including
complying with show regulations, and for reducing the risk

Veterinary Surgery. 2017;1–5. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/vsu V

C 2017 The American College of Veterinary Surgeons | 1
2 |
of injury to other goats and people. Ideally, kids should be
disbudded by 2-4 weeks of age to prevent horn development,
and the most commonly used method is thermal cauterization
with a hot iron.3 Thermal disbudding early in life is a simple
procedure with a high success rate and few complications.2
However, when producers fail to disbud kids at an early age,
surgical dehorning becomes necessary.
Surgical dehorning is a more extensive procedure in
goats than in cattle because of the anatomical differences
between the species. In goats, the horns are closer together
and arise in a parietal position in contrast to the temporal
position observed in cattle.1 Additionally, the size of the base
of the horn of goats, relative to the size of the head, is larger
than that of cattle. Both of these factors lead to increased ten-
sion when attempting to close the incision following removal
of the horns.4 Exposure of the frontal sinus following horn
removal, coupled with extreme tension on the skin closure,
contributes to the increased risk of postoperative complica-
tions. Complications that are associated with surgical dehorn-
ing of goats include epistaxis, sinusitis, and dehiscence;
however, a previous study of surgical dehorning procedures
in a small population of goats reported few complications.5
The objectives of this study were to report complication
rates and types following surgical dehorning in goats, as well
as identify risk factors for experiencing complications.
2 | MATERIALS AND METHODS
Medical records from the Texas A&M University Veterinary
Medical Teaching Hospital (VMTH) were reviewed to iden-
tify goats that had a surgical dehorning procedure performed
between January 2006 and April 2016. Data retrieved from
the medical records included breed, weight, the surgeon per-
forming the procedure, intraoperative complications, and the
occurrence of return visits to the teaching hospital because of
complications related to the dehorning procedure. Follow-up
information about the outcome of the dehorning procedure
was obtained by having the owners complete a standard
questionnaire during a telephone interview completed a mini-
mum of 90 days following discharge from the hospital. Infor-
mation collected from the client included the presence or
absence of the following: incisional discharge (including
character of discharge and whether bilateral or unilateral),
redness or swelling of the surgical site, nasal discharge, appe-
tite 24 hours after surgery, complications that required the
client to seek treatment from another veterinarian, develop-
ment of scurs, complications that affected the production or
show career of the goat, and dehiscence of the surgical site.
Scurs are defined as a distorted horn, regrown after the
dehorning or disbudding procedure. Any additional compli-
cations recalled by the client were also noted.
HARTNACK ET AL.
2.1 | Surgical procedure
All procedures were performed or supervised by senior clini-
cians at the Texas A&M VMTH. Perioperative protocols var-
ied by surgeon; however, all goats were sedated and a ring
block using 1% or 2% lidocaine was administered. Sedation
protocols varied by clinician, but included xylazine (0.05-
0.2 mg/kg IV or IM) with or without ketamine (0.1-2 mg/kg
IV or IM) and butorphanol (0.1 mg/kg IV or IM). Goats also
received tetanus toxoid, one dose of an antimicrobial drug
(ceftiofur at 2.2 mg/kg IM or penicillin 22 000 IU/kg IM
administered within 30 minutes of start of procedure), and
one dose of flunixin meglumine (2.2 mg/kg IV). An elliptical
skin incision was made with a scalpel around each horn
base, leaving a 1-2 mm rim of skin between the incision and
the corium of the horn. Following completion of the incision,
Gigli wire was used to remove the horn, exposing the frontal
sinus. Hemostasis was achieved by applying hemostatic for-
ceps to larger vessels. Bone rongeurs were used to shape the
frontal bone and allow for closure. The skin was then under-
mined to allow enough mobility for closure. Skin was closed
with 0.4-mm polymerized caprolactum (Braunamid, Jorgen-
sen Laboratories, Loveland, Colorado) in a continuous Ford
interlocking pattern or an interrupted cruciate pattern. A
tension-relieving suture (near-far-far-near) was placed in the
center of the incision prior to closure if needed.
2.2 | Statistical analysis
Continuous data are reported as mean 6SD and categorical
data as numbers in each group or percentages. Continuous
data were evaluated for normality using the Kolmogorov-
Smirnov test. Weight comparisons between groups (compli-
cations vs no complications) were assessed using a Mann-
Whitney U test. (SPSS, IBM Corp., Armonk, New York).
3 | RESULTS
Review of the medical records identified 575 goats under-
going surgical dehorning procedure at the Texas A&M
VMTH during the study period. A total of 140 clients were
associated with these 575 goats. Of the 140 clients, 54
(38.57%) completed the telephone survey, allowing inclusion
of 239 goats in this study.
Complications were categorized as major and minor,
with major complications defined as dehiscence of the inci-
sion and death related to the surgical procedure. Minor com-
plications were defined as redness or swelling of the
incision, nasal discharge, incisional discharge, inappetance,
scurs, or perception of decreased performance.
The breed distribution of goats included 111 Boer goats,
90 mixed breed (Boer cross), 24 dairy breed goats, 13 Pygmy/
HARTNACK ET AL.
| 3

T A BL E 1 Incidence of complications following the surgical dehorning procedure (N 5 239)

Number of goats
Complication (% of total) Unilateral Bilateral

Incisional discharge 26 8/26 16/26

(10.88%) (30.77%) (69.23%)

Redness and swelling 39 4/39 35/39

(16.32%) (10.26%) (89.74%)

Nasal discharge 35 3/35 32/35

(14.64%) (8.57%) (91.43%)

Scur formation 8 N/A N/A

(3.35%)

Off feed for >24 h after procedure 9 N/A N/A

(3.77%)

Impacted production or show career 3 N/A N/A

(1.26%)

Dehiscence 8 3/8 5/8

(2.09%) (60%) (40%)

Other (death, anesthetic complication) 2 N/A N/A

(0.8%)

NA, not applicable.

Dwarf, and 1 Tennessee meat goat. The mean weight of the
goats included in this study was 27.8 kg (range, 5.9-90 kg).
One or more complications following the surgical dehorn-
ing procedure were reported in 93/239 (38.91%) of goats,
with <5% of goats returning to the Texas A&M VMTH for
evaluation or treatment of complications. Fifty-nine goats
experienced a single complication, 31 goats experienced 2
complications, and 3 goats experienced >2 complications.
Complications included incisional discharge, incisional
swelling, nasal discharge, inappetance, development of scurs,
and dehiscence (Table 1). Eighty-four of 239 goats (35.14%)
had minor complications, 3/239 goats (1.26%) experienced
major complications, and 6/239 (2.51%) had both major and
minor complications. Of the 26/239 (10.88%) goats that were
reported to have incisional discharge, 18 had bilateral discharge
and 8 had only unilateral discharge, occurring within 2 weeks
of dehorning. The type of discharge was also identified. Of the
26 goats reported to have discharge, 8 had thin and clear dis-
charge, 8 had bloody discharge, and 10 had purulent discharge.
This discharge did not require treatment by a veterinarian.
Incisional redness or swelling was reported in 39/239
(16.32%) goats. Of those 39 goats, 35 had redness or swel-
ling bilaterally and 4 had redness or swelling unilaterally.
Dehiscence at the surgical site was reported in 8/239 (3.35%)
goats, occurring bilaterally in 5 cases and unilaterally in 3
cases. Owners reported excessive head butting and head rub-
bing in 2 of these goats. Only 1/8 goats experiencing dehis-
cence required treatment by a veterinarian.
Nasal discharge was reported in 35/239 (14.64%) goats.
Nasal discharge was bilateral for 32 goats and unilateral for 3
goats. Owners did not report that this discharge required treat-
ment by a veterinarian. Type of discharge was not reported.
Scurs were reported to have formed in 8/239 (3.35%)
goats. Inappetence for >24 hours was reported in 9/239
(3.77%) goats. One client reported that the 3 goats she had
dehorned did not seem to grow as big as the rest of the herd.
Intraoperative complications were noted in the medical
record of one patient. The goat experienced profound respira-
tory depression during surgery, necessitating termination of
the procedure after only the left horn had been removed.
This response was presumed to be associated with xylazine
administration. Therefore, when this animal returned 3 weeks
later for completion of the dehorning, a different anesthetic
protocol was used without complication.
Complications requiring visitation to a veterinarian other
than our hospital was reported in 5/239 (2.09%) goats. One
goat required closure of the incision following dehiscence.
The other complications were unrelated to the surgical proce-
dure and included external parasites, urinary calculi, diarrhea
secondary to internal parasitism, and dark-colored urine. A
total of 12 animals returned to the VMTH following the
dehorning procedure, although only owners of 2 animals
completed the telephone survey.
A total of 4 goats died within 2 weeks of their surgical
dehorning procedure, 3 for reasons that appeared to be unre-
lated to the surgical procedure. One patient died after being
diagnosed with urinary calculi by another veterinarian. One
4 |
goat was euthanized following complications from dissemi-
nated caseous lymphadenitis. Necropsy also revealed a right
frontal sinusitis from the surgical dehorning although this
was not suggested as cause of death by the pathologist per-
forming the necropsy. The death of the third goat was
reported as acute myocardial degeneration suspected to be
caused by toxic plant ingestion or from neurogenic origin.
One owner reported that his goat was euthanized because it
developed seizures postoperatively.
Of all the breeds, Boer goats had the highest incidence of
complications (52/111 [46.85%]). Dairy goats (9/24
[37.50%]), mixed breed goats (30/90 [33.33%]), and Pygmy/
Dwarf goats (1/13 [7.69%]) also had complications associ-
ated with surgical dehorning. The only Tennessee meat goat
in this study was also reported to have had complications
from the surgical dehorning.
The mean weight of goats with complications was
29.73 kg (614.94 kg) compared to 24.91 kg (611.23 kg)
for goats without complications. This difference was statisti-
cally significant (P 5 .015).
Four veterinarians performed 213/239 surgeries, with another
4 veterinarians performing the remainder of the procedures.
4 | DISCUSSION
The findings of the current study indicate that complications
following surgical dehorning procedure are common, but are
rarely serious.
It is interesting, but not surprising, that the mean weight
of goats experiencing complications was significantly higher
than those not experiencing complications. It is our clinical
impression that younger, smaller goats are easier to dehorn
due to their smaller horn size, and our results appear to sup-
port this observation. In our hospital, we recommend that
goats that are not disbudded as neonates have their horns sur-
gically removed as early as possible.
Incisional discharge, redness, and swelling are not unex-
pected following a clean contaminated surgical operation.
Contamination of the frontal sinuses with blood and bone
fragment explains the relatively high incidence of nasal dis-
charge after surgical dehorning. Dehiscence of the incisions
was reported in only 3% of cases, even though most of the
incisions are closed under a substantial amount of tension. It
is worth noting that the reason for dehiscence could be
explained for 2 of the 8 goats for which this complication
was reported. Clients reported head-butting and rubbing of
the incision site in these 2 animals. Dehiscence in only one
goat was serious enough to require a second closure of the
incision. Postoperative aftercare following surgical dehorning
is clearly simpler than that described for open dehorning pro-
cedures.6 The surgical dehorning procedure requires minimal
aftercare, even in the face of complications.
HARTNACK ET AL.
Goats are surgically dehorned most commonly when the
owner misses the window of opportunity to have thermal dis-
budding performed. Occasionally, goats are dehorned surgi-
cally because the owner perceives that surgical dehorning
produces an aesthetically more pleasing appearance of the
head than does thermal disbudding. Concern about causing
thermal necrosis of the cerebrum, a known risk of thermal
disbudding, may also cause owners to choose surgical
dehorning.7 Reasons for performing surgical dehorning vs
thermal disbudding were not examined in the current study.
Although there is a perception by veterinarians that surgi-
cal dehorning in goats carries a higher complication rate com-
pared to surgical dehorning in cattle, there is no literature
reporting complication rates following surgical dehorning in
cattle. Surgical dehorning in cattle is routinely performed both
at specialty and private practices. While surgically dehorning
goats is not a complicated procedure, it requires relatively
more bone removal and undermining of the skin to achieve
satisfactory closure. There are many veterinary specialty prac-
tices in which surgical dehorning of goats is not routinely per-
formed because of this perceived difficulty and a perceived
high complication rate associated with it. There is, however,
limited support in the literature substantiating these percep-
tions.1,5 However, if the goats are too old to be thermally dis-
budded, traditional methods of dehorning, where the wound is
left to heal by second intention, are not desirable due to exten-
sive aftercare and risk of potential complications, as well as an
undesirable postoperative surgical appearance.2,4,6,8-10
A few animals in this study developed scurs following
surgical dehorning. It is likely that an insufficient margin of
germinal tissue was removed around the base of the horn.
Because of the size of the base of the horn and the paucity of
skin remaining to close the incision, it is tempting to incise
the skin too close to the horn base leaving the potential for
scur formation.
For any livestock species, there are ethical considerations
when performing dehorning surgery. First and foremost is
the pain and stress incurred by the animal undergoing the
procedure. While the relative pain response in animals under-
going surgical dehorning compared to thermal disbudding
has not been examined in a clinical trial, there is little doubt
that animals undergoing surgical dehorning experience
greater stress and postoperative pain than animals being ther-
mally disbudded. This can be attributed to the fact that the
surgical dehorning procedure takes significantly longer than
the thermal disbudding procedure, and the amount of dissec-
tion required to close the skin is often extensive. A secondary
ethical concern is the potential for dehorned animals to be
sold as naturally polled when the head is cosmetically altered
during the surgical procedure.11 This is less important in
goats than in cattle because the polled goat gene is also asso-
ciated with intersex condition, making naturally polled goats
relatively uncommon.
HARTNACK ET AL.
Based on the results of this study, it can be concluded
that the surgical dehorning procedure can be performed safely
with minimal aftercare, and should potentially be performed
early to minimize complications. Although there is a high rate
of minor complications, they appeared to have no effect on
health or performance of the goats. Despite our observations
that this procedure provides a good surgical outcome with
minimal scur formation, it should only be considered a sec-
ondary alternative to thermal disbudding of neonates, which
is the method of choice for horn removal of goats.
C O NFL IC T O F I NTE RE S T
[10] Spaulding CE. Procedure for dehorning the dairy goat. Vet Med
The authors declare no conflicts of interest related to this
report.
[11] Hoffsis G. Surgical (cosmetic) dehorning in cattle. Vet Clin
R EF ERE NC ES
[1] Mobini S. Cosmetic dehorning of adult goats. Small Rumin Res.
1991;5:187-191.
[2] Bowen JS. Dehorning the mature goat. J Am Vet Med Assoc.
1977;171:1249-1250.
[3] Alvarez L, Gutierrez J. A first description of the physiological
and behavioural responses to disbudding in goat kids. Anim
Welf. 2010;19:55-59.
| 5
[4] Hull BL. Dehorning the adult goat. Vet Clin North Am Food
Anim Pract. 1995;11:183-185.
[5] Hague BA, Hooper R. Cosmetic dehorning in goats. Vet Surg.
1997;26:332-334.
[6] Parizi AM, Fathi M. Post-dehorning wound management in
goats. J Appl Anim Res. 1999;15:149-152.
[7] Thompson KG, Bateman RS, Morris PJ. Cerebral infarction and
meningoencephalitis following hot-iron disbudding of goat kids.
N Z Vet J. 2005;53:368-370.
[8] Bailey DE. Sheep and goats. In: Jennings PB, ed. The Practice of Large
Animal Surgery. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders; 1984:272-276.
[9] Buttle H, Mowlem A, Mews A. Disbudding and dehorning of
goats. In Pract. 1986;8:63-65.
Small Anim Clin. 1977;72:228-230.
North Am Food Anim Pract. 1995;11:159-169.
How to cite this article: Hartnack AK, Jordan ME,
Roussel AJ. Complications associated with surgical
dehorning in goats: A retrospective study of 239 cases.
Veterinary Surgery. 2017;00:1-5. https://doi.org/10.
1111/vsu.12743