PREFACE
“A knowledge of the real nature of gout ... is, in my opinion, at the very foundation of all sound pathology,” wrote Todd many years since; and the passing years have but invested his reflection with deeper significance and something of prophetic insight. For who can doubt that he who would elucidate the pathological groundwork of gout must be at once a clinical physician, a bio-chemist, a bacteriologist, a morbid anatomist? and well may we ask, Who is sufficient for all this?
How vivid the light thrown upon the problems of clinical medicine by the bio-chemists! The story of the fate of protein and purin substances in the animal body, at one time a medley of guesses and gaps, is gradually evolving into one of relative certitude and completeness. Revolutionary, in truth, the change, and many a cherished shibboleth has been ruthlessly cast aside! With admiration not unmingled with awe we see them laying well and truly the foundations upon which in the ultimate scientific medicine must inevitably rest.
Of these the very corner-stones are chemical physiology and chemical pathology, the rapid evolution of which is profoundly altering our conceptions of health and disease. Those vital processes of the organism that but yesterday we saw “as through a glass, darkly,” are now in great part illumined, and the distortions wrought in them by disease made more manifest.
How pregnant, too, with warning their findings! Processes that to our untutored minds seem simple are revealed as infinitely complex. Through what a maze must we thread our way if we would disentangle the intricacies of metabolism! Intricate enough, forsooth, in health, but how much more so in disease! For, as Sir Archibald Garrod eloquently phrases it, “it is becoming evident that special paths of metabolism exist, not only for proteins, fats, and carbohydrates as such, but that even the individual primary fractions of the protein molecule follow their several katabolic paths, and are dealt with in successive stages by series of enzymes until the final products of katabolism are formed. Any of these paths may be locked while others remain open.”
It is with chastening reflections such as these that we may best approach our study of gout, that riddle of the ages upon which so many physicians from time immemorial have expended their dialectic skill. But, vast though the increase in our knowledge of the chemical structure of uric acid and its allies, uncertainty still dogs our steps, and, doubtful of the pathway to solution of the pathological mystery of gout, we must perforce approach the problem in a more strictly catholic attitude.
Uric acid has apparently failed us as the causa causans. Neither this substance nor its precursors can be held responsible for the fever, local inflammation and constitutional disturbances in gout, being, as they are, practically non-toxic. Albeit, though I hold this view, I do not for one moment suggest that uric acid has nothing whatever to do with gout. The fact that tophi, its pathognomonic stigmata, are compounded of biurate of soda, would per se stamp such an attitude as untenable. On the other hand, uric acid must be viewed at its proper perspective as a concomitant or sequel of gouty inflammation, the essential cause of which must be sought elsewhere.
“The old order changeth, giving place to new,” and happily with the advent of bacteriology our views, or rather our hazards, as to the nature of joint diseases underwent profound modification. But, strange to say, though quick to apprehend the significance of infection, its causal relation to other joint disorders, we still seem unaccountably loth to discard our timeworn conception of “gouty” arthritis as of purely metabolic origin. This to my mind is the more remarkable in that the onset, clinical phenomena, and course of acute gout, and no less the life history of the disorder as a whole, are emphatically indicative of the intrusion of an infective element in its genesis.
The extreme frequency with which infective foci are met with in the victims of gout, the frequency, too, with which exacerbations of the disorder are presaged by acute glandular affections of undeniably infective source, is by no means adequately realised. For our forefathers gout began, and, forsooth, often ended, in the “stomach,” or it was the “liver” that was impeached. But the portal to the alimentary canal was for them only a cavity, the contained structures of which, albeit, to their mind often betrayed evidences of a “gouty diathesis.” They distinguished “gouty” teeth, “gouty” tonsillitis, “gouty” pharyngitis, even “gouty” parotitis; but all these they classed as tokens or sequelæ of gout, not possible causes or excitants thereof.
Now as to the true significance of these acute glandular affections held by clinicians of repute to be of “gouty” origin. What of “gouty” tonsillitis, pharyngitis, parotitis? Still more, what of our deductions regarding the relationship of these same when met with in association with non-gouty forms of arthritis? Do we not hold them each and all as evidences of infection? and, we may well ask, why not in gout?
The marvel then is that even to-day many still hold that the tonsillitis, pharyngitis, even the gingivitis, like the subsequent articular lesions, are one and all attributable to the underlying gout. We certainly should not do so in the case of any arthritis other than “gouty,” and to my mind the time is ripe for a change of attitude.
The “gouty” throats, like the “gouty” teeth, should be regarded not as symptomatic of gout, but etiologically related thereto. We should cease to talk of “gouty” throats, teeth, etc., should renounce the prefix, for there is nothing specific of gout either in the tonsillar, pharyngeal, or dental lesions. We should instead view these various local disorders in their true perspective as foci of infection, causally related to the subsequent and secondary “gouty” arthritis.
Similarly, when we come to analyse the component elements of an acute paroxysm of gout, how strongly indicative of the intrusion of an infective element the following features: the onset, temperature curve, character of local articular changes of the disorder, the presence of leucocytosis, with secondary anæmia and enlargement of the lymphatic glands! Again, how suggestive the occasional complication of acute gout by lymphangitis and phlebitis! Of like significance, too, the paroxysmal nature and periodicity of the disorder, and the compatibility of the morbid anatomical changes and the cytological content of the aspirated joint fluid with their genesis by infection.
As to correlation of the metabolic phenomena of gout with the postulated infective element, I would suggest that, although abnormalities of metabolism form an integral part of gout, they are of themselves inadequate to achieve its efflorescence. As we shall see when we come to consider those elemental manifestations of gout, i.e., uratic deposits, or tophi, neither the purely physical nor the purely chemical theory of their origin will suffice, nor, for that matter, can any solution of their formation be gleaned from even a blend of the twain. In short, such hypotheses are too mechanical.
The intrusion of some other factor, “something vital, something biological,” seems essential for the elucidation of uratosis, i.e., uratic deposition. For this, not uricæmia, is the specific characteristic phenomenon of gout. If we cannot explain uratosis on physical or chemical grounds, then how much less, in view of the non-toxicity of uric acid, can we on this basis account for the inflammatory phenomena of the disorder!
Now inflammatory reaction is, I hold, an invariable antecedent in all gouty processes, whether of articular or ab-articular site. Granted that inflammatory reaction is a necessary prelude, the specificity of gout is attested by the fact that the same is followed by local deposition of urates. But while this sequential uratic deposition invests all forms of “gouty” inflammation with a specific character unshared by any other disease, it follows that the cause of the said inflammation must, if possible, be ascertained.
Now, as I believe, “gouty” subjects are ab initio victimised by innate tissue peculiarities, doubtless reflected in corresponding obliquities of tissue function and metamorphosis, and through their medium the general resistance of the body to invasion by infections is lowered; in other words, under the influence of these morbific agencies the latent morbid potentialities of the gouty become overt and manifest. For in the gouty, as Walker Hall observes, “a slight injury or indiscretion of diet, an overloaded intestine, or increased toxicity of the intestinal flora, may be followed by a disturbance of the general nuclein metabolism and a local reaction in certain tissues.”
Enough has been said to disclose the dominant trend of this work, and although there are many aspects of the subject in regard to which I hold somewhat iconoclastic views, yet exigencies of space forbid me even to allude to them in this foreword. I hasten therefore to discharge the pleasing duty of acknowledging my great indebtedness to the acumen and discrimination which has been brought to bear on this subject by a long succession of eminent physicians, in proof of which I need only adduce the names of those giants of the past the illustrious Sydenham, Sir Thomas Watson, Sir Charles Scudamore, Jonathan Hutchinson, not to mention Trousseau, Charcot, Lecorche, and Rendu. But I should fail in my duty did I not in a special sense express my deep indebtedness to the classic and epoch-making work of Sir Alfred Garrod. For the rest, too, I have derived much enlightenment from Sir Dyce Duckworth’s treatise and the various works on the subject by Luff, Lindsay, and others.
From the bio-chemical aspect I owe much to the researches of Walker Hall, and to those of our American confrères Folin, Denis, Benedict, Pratt, McLeod, Walker Jones, Gideon Wells, etc.
Reverting to my own colleagues at the Royal Mineral Water Hospital, Bath, I would tender my deep thanks to the Honorary Physicians, Drs. Waterhouse, Thomson, Lindsay, and King Martyn, for the uniformly generous manner in which they afforded me opportunities for studying cases under their care.
To Dr. Munro, our senior pathologist, I am especially beholden for invaluable, nay indispensable, help in the matter of blood examinations, the cytological study of joint fluids, and the microscopic verifications of tophi. To Dr. MacKay also my cordial thanks are due for the skiagraphs contained in this work.
For the section dealing with the ocular disorders met with in the gouty my most sincere thanks are due to Mr. W. M. Beaumont, of Bath, whose singularly wide experience in this sphere renders him unusually equipped to deal with this highly controversial aspect of gout. To Drs. Cave and Gordon, of Bath, also I am indebted for many valuable suggestions kindly afforded me while writing this volume. To my brother Dr. Bassett Jones I am under deep obligation for unwearying assistance in our joint endeavour to ascertain the exact relationship of gout to lumbago, sciatica, and other types of fibrositis.
For the preparation of the index of this work I would proffer my grateful thanks to Mr. Charles Hewitt and to Miss Donnan and Miss Crosse for having undertaken the arduous task of typing the manuscript thereof.
Lastly, I would express my thanks to my publisher, Mr. Heinemann, for much consideration and many courtesies.
LL. J. LL.
31, Upper Brook Street, W. 1.