My cat had a bit of her tail bitten clean off by a fox (presumably). I found the piece of tail and fur outside my front door, and when I squeezed it I realised there was 2" of bone inside. Looking at the cat it was difficult to tell that a bit of her tail was missing.
My wife took the cat to the vet and the vet told her that because a bit of bone was still showing she would need to remove a bit of bone to be able to stitch the skin back on. My wife called me on the phone and asked me and of course I said no, since the cat is not bleeding let it heal naturally, perhaps just give her antibiotics for a week. However the vet insisted that an operation was absolutely necessary so I agreed.
The cat came back with a stump where her tail had previously been. I estimate the vet took off at least an extra 4" of healthy tail. I called the vet to inquire why such a drastic mutilation and she said that she only took out 1-1.5" which is a lie of course. She also said that the cat may have had had another piece bitten off and carried off by the fox which I did not find, but again a lie, the cat had almost a full tail with only a tiny piece missing. The vet also said that tail injuries are notoriously hard to heal and that the closer it is to the base the better the blood supply and the chance to heal.
What I believed happened is this. The diameter of the solid part of the tail where it was bitten off is 3mm (I have the piece in my possession and have just measured it). Had the vet attempted to operate there, removing just one joint of the tail maybe, she would have to work with very small dimensions of tissue and bone, probably she would need to operate using a magnifying device, and to make her life easier she decided to cut the tail higher up where it gets much thicker and the diameter is more than 1cm so she could then apply lots of stitches easily.
My problem is that the vet never told my wife that she would remove such a large chunk of tail so we were not informed.
My wife took the cat to the vet and the vet told her that because a bit of bone was still showing she would need to remove a bit of bone to be able to stitch the skin back on. My wife called me on the phone and asked me and of course I said no, since the cat is not bleeding let it heal naturally, perhaps just give her antibiotics for a week. However the vet insisted that an operation was absolutely necessary so I agreed.
The cat came back with a stump where her tail had previously been. I estimate the vet took off at least an extra 4" of healthy tail. I called the vet to inquire why such a drastic mutilation and she said that she only took out 1-1.5" which is a lie of course. She also said that the cat may have had had another piece bitten off and carried off by the fox which I did not find, but again a lie, the cat had almost a full tail with only a tiny piece missing. The vet also said that tail injuries are notoriously hard to heal and that the closer it is to the base the better the blood supply and the chance to heal.
What I believed happened is this. The diameter of the solid part of the tail where it was bitten off is 3mm (I have the piece in my possession and have just measured it). Had the vet attempted to operate there, removing just one joint of the tail maybe, she would have to work with very small dimensions of tissue and bone, probably she would need to operate using a magnifying device, and to make her life easier she decided to cut the tail higher up where it gets much thicker and the diameter is more than 1cm so she could then apply lots of stitches easily.
My problem is that the vet never told my wife that she would remove such a large chunk of tail so we were not informed.
Last edited by a moderator:
