Gout, with a section on ocular disease in the gouty

by Llewellyn J. Llewellyn

Collateral Phenomena of Gout

The liability of acute articular gout to be complicated by muscular and nerve disorders has already been briefly alluded to. Also it was pointed out that in respect of this tendency gout displayed an analogy with the specific infections, viz., in that these latter too are prone not only to arthritic, but to muscular and nerve, lesions also.

Our forefathers, greatly exercised by this apparent overlapping of “gout” and “rheumatism,” in their efforts at discrimination drew fanciful contrasts between the subjective sensations produced by gout and rheumatism, but all to no end, for said Heberden, “It must be owned that there are cases in which the criteria of both are so blended together that it is not easy to determine whether the pain be gout or rheumatism.”

Gradually, however, a change in attitude made itself felt. It became no longer customary to regard such examples as blends of gout and “rheumatism,” but to hold the muscular and nerve disorders as also attributable to the underlying gout. Thus, so impressed was Garrod with the frequency of the incidence of lumbago and sciatica in gouty subjects that he was doubtful as to whether they ought to have been classed by him as among the “diseases to which gouty persons are particularly liable.” He thought “they might perhaps have been properly classed among the forms of irregular gout.”

Duckworth, again, felt sure “that much so-called ‘muscular’ rheumatism is really gouty,” and forthwith ranked its manifestations among the irregular forms of gout. Hilton Fagge was likewise convinced that the muscular types of fibrositis are frequently and obviously related to gout; while Sir William Gowers, discussing this same muscular fibrositis, is even more explicit: “It is currently associated with gout, and the truth of the belief is soon impressed upon the practitioner. But it is gout with a difference: it may occur in those who are gouty in the common sense of the word, but some of the most severe cases I have seen, especially the brachial form, have been in those who have inherited a tendency to gout, but have not merited its development.”

Turning to the nerve manifestations, Charcot long since pointed out that gout and sciatica might co-exist, while Gowers is insistent that “underlying most cases of sciatica is either the state of definite gout, or that ‘rheumatic diathesis’ in which the fibrous tissues suffer, especially those that are connected with the muscles, a form closely connected with common gout by co-existence or descent.”

As to my own opinion, I have, in collaboration with Bassett Jones, discussed in detail this relationship of gout to fibrositis in our monograph on the latter disorder, and I shall largely transcribe our remarks therein on this vexed point.

Of all the conditions reputed to be etiologically related to fibrositis, in none of them is the connection more obvious or more easily traceable than between this affection and gout. Whether or no the hyperplasia of the connective tissues be directly due to the gouty toxin must perforce for the present remain uncertain. But there is no doubt as to the relatively frequent incidence of fibrositis in “gouty” subjects. It is as true to-day as when Scudamore wrote it that occasionally “a patient when he has gout in the regular situations suffers, in consequence of some partial exposure to cold, a rheumatism in other parts, as in the muscles of the neck, or in the shoulder joints; and a seizure of lumbago at the time of the invasion of the gout is also not uncommon.”

Apart from the simultaneous incidence of gout and fibrositis in the same subject, it is equally certain that the victims of a “gouty” heritage are unusually prone to develop fibrositis.

Thus, in a series of 1,000 cases hereditary or acquired gout was present in no less than 281—viz., a percentage incidence of 28·1. While this taint was more in evidence in fibrositis of the joints, it obtained appreciably in regard to all muscular types of the affection, more especially lumbago, its influence also being very obvious in the case of sciatica and other types of nerve sheath involvement.

In light of this, we must admit being somewhat nonplussed by those who confidently affirm that “gout” plays little or no part in the production of “fibrositis.” Speaking from an extensive experience, we confidently believe the reverse is the case, and that the gouty element is but too frequently overlooked in examples of this affection.

Approaching another aspect of this vexed question of the relationship of gout, what of the ambiguous attitude of those who, while denying it any share in the causation of lumbago and other types of muscular fibrositis, yet at the same time attribute to gout an important etiological rôle in the allied conditions sciatica and brachialgia?

Thus, they maintain that the fleeting attacks of lumbar fibrositis or lumbago which ensue after dietetic indiscretions have no relation to gout, but are simply indicative of some digestive disability on the part of the individual for certain articles of diet. Hardly to our mind a satisfactory mode of differentiation; much less can it be held to put out of court the influence of gout. For are not the gouty precisely the very persons who display this inability to cope satisfactorily with unusual or excessive meals? Hence the frequency with which in their instance attacks of lumbar fibrositis, often transient, almost invariably ensue when any unwonted excess of purin-containing food has to be disposed of, and especially when at the same time katabolic changes have been stimulated in the body by the ingestion of alcohol, not necessarily excessive in amount.

That the lumbar regions should have been singled out is the more remarkable, for, if there be one form of fibrositis more than another prone to be associated with gout, it is precisely lumbago.

Our difficulty, moreover, in appreciating the cogency of this plea for excluding the influence of gout in muscular fibrositis is the more accentuated in that those who advocate it claim that this very gout is the salient etiological factor in sciatica and brachialgia.

This position is untenable, and for the following reasons: the pathological lesion in both instances is the same—viz., fibrositis; in lumbago and deltoid rheumatism it implicates the sheaths and interstitial tissues of the muscles, in sciatica and brachialgia the similar investments of the nerves.

Strictly speaking, therefore, any differentiation that we can effect between muscular and neuralgic types of fibrositis is perforce merely topographical. To draw etiological distinctions is well-nigh impossible, for the very continuity of the fibrous tissues favours the passage of one type into the other. Hence clinically we find that the bulk of our cases of sciatica are preceded by lumbago, and similarly many cases of brachial neuralgia or neuritis develop by extension out of a pre-existing deltoid fibrositis.

In light of such transitions of muscular into neuralgic types of fibrositis, it seems inconsistent to postulate a gouty origin for the latter and at the same time to deny it any share in the production of the former. For ourselves, we fully recognise gout as the most potent predisposing factor in sciatica and brachialgia, and ergo in the closely associated and often antecedent muscular types of fibrositis.

While insisting on the importance of gout as a predisposing factor in fibrositis, we feel called upon to emphasise the fact that we are not sheltering ourselves under that nebulous term “latent” gout, for our contention is based on the ground that in the vast majority of the cases for which we claim a gouty origin unequivocal proofs of gout, such as tophi, etc., were present.