Classification

At the present time, under the most liberal interpretation, the word “gout” comprises the following conditions, viz., acute and chronic articular gout, and the so-called ab-articular forms. But it is clear that not only the latter or irregular manifestations, but even the former or regular varieties of the disorder seem destined to undergo considerable pruning.

As to the classical podagra—acute articular gout—no question can arise as to the propriety of its retention in this category. But as to the chronic articular types we are on less certain ground, and to discussion of this vexed question we now proceed.

Let us take, for example, Sir Dyce Duckworth’s classification of the arthritic types of gout. He distinguishes the following forms:—

the latter (2) further subdivided into—

Of these twain the “tophaceous” form need not detain us, and why? Simply and solely this—the uratic deposits stamp the seal of specificity on the disorder. In short, the presence of tophi places the “gouty” origin of the arthritis beyond the pale of cavil.

Now, if we accept, as we must, the fact that uratic deposition is the solitary unequivocal clinical criterion of gout, we are not, I contend, justified in classing any chronic arthritis as “gouty,” the victim of which does not exhibit tophi of articular or ab-articular site, either clinically demonstrable or deducible from skiagraphic revelations.

Nevertheless, be it noted tophi do but bespeak the “gouty diathesis,” not necessarily the “gouty” nature of an associated arthritis. For clearly tophi, of ab-articular location, may coexist with an arthritis of gonococcal or other origin. But given uratic deposits, either in the joint proper or its related structures, all reasonable doubts as to the true “gouty” nature of the arthritis are disposed of. On the other hand, in the absence of tophi, the diagnosis of an arthritis as “gouty” is presumptive, not absolute. This even in acute classical outbreaks in the big toe, viz., pending the finding or subsequent eruption of tophi.

In saying this, I do not for one moment depreciate the diagnostic value of the clue afforded by location of the initial outbreak of the disorder, in the vast majority of instances, in the big toe. It is an invaluable, but not an infallible clue; for, unfortunately, acute arthritic diseases other than gout may elect to announce themselves in the great toe.

Moreover, there is nothing specific in the external characters of acute “gouty” inflammation, nothing in the objective changes which would stamp them on sight as “gouty,” save only their location in the great toe; nothing distinctive about the angry blush, œdema, and engorged veins, all of which may be met with in infective arthritis. There may be, as Garrod with good reason affirms, a local intra-articular deposit of urate of soda, but this lies beyond our ken, presumptive but undemonstrable.

Let but the initial outbreak of gout occur elsewhere than at the big toe, say, e.g., in the wrist, hand, ankle, or knee, and we are at once, diagnostically speaking, en l’air. In this impasse how impotent are we, and how painfully we realise that our diagnosis of acute gout is largely topographical, not etiological! Not, strictly speaking, etiologically diagnosable pending the eruption and detection of tophi. In short, location per se in the big toe is strongly suggestive but not diagnostic of “gout.” (Vide Chapters on Diagnosis.)

If this be done in the green, what then shall be done in the dry? In other words, if so precarious our diagnostic foothold in acute, how much more so in chronic articular gout! for in the latter even topography may wholly fail us, what then our diagnostic criterion?—tophi and tophi alone—aye, and demonstrable at that.

Yet both Charcot and Duckworth would have us recognise not only a tophaceous but a non-tophaceous variety of chronic articular gout, for that is what it amounts to. They apparently feel justified in labelling a chronic arthritis as “gouty” even though tophi “may not exist” or “be invisible”! Deformity, say they, is its hall-mark, not tophi, and its character forsooth, they add, is not only not peculiar to gout, but clinically indistinguishable from the similar defacements met with in arthritis deformans. Nor is Duckworth alone in his contention, for both Ewart and Luff also recognise what they term “chronic deforming gout.”

Tophi, I contend, notwithstanding, are essential for the diagnosis of gout. In their absence, the designation of an arthritis as “gouty” is unjustifiable. Either tophi are, or tophi are not the sole pathognomonic feature of gout. If the latter, then gout ceases to exist as a clinically recognisable entity.

Holding tophi indispensable for the diagnosis of gout, I maintain that Charcot and Duckworth’s plea for the recognition of a chronic type of articular gout, apart from the tophaceous variety, is untenable. Fraught, moreover, with risk, as I am satisfied that their so-called, “deforming” type is largely made up of the atrophic and hypertrophic forms of arthritis deformans.