Gout, with a section on ocular disease in the gouty

by Llewellyn J. Llewellyn

In summarising the doctrines of Ord and Ebstein, it may be observed that if the latter’s contentions have been disproved, Ord’s claim that the tissues of gouty subjects exhibit a specific tendency to degeneration has also as yet not been substantiated. Albeit, we must not forget that in 1883 Ralfe subscribed to Ord’s views as to the tendency to textural degenerations in gouty subjects, either through heredity or acquirement. For this observer, however, the basal factor in the production of the disease was a diminished alkalinity of the blood, due to a surcharging of it with acid and acid salts. Disagreeing with Garrod’s assumption that deficient renal elimination was the prime cause of the retention of uric acid, he was of opinion that “the first step in the process lies in the failure of the tissues to reduce the acid, as it occurs in health.”... “In the large glands or where the current of the circulation is free, the uric acid is carried into the blood and gradually reduced to urea; in tissues outside the current of the circulation, the insoluble uric acid is not so readily carried off, and so on the slightest disturbance is deposited, as is the case in cartilages of the joint, the ear, etc.” As to the determining cause of the gouty attack, he invokes the agency of the nervous system to explain its incidence, for he held it probable that the primitive failure of the tissues to reduce uric acid eventually led to derangement of some special nerve centre, which disturbance occasioned the gouty outbreak, with resultant “accumulation of uric acid in the blood and deposition of urate of soda in the tissues.”

In 1895 Berkart propounded a mode of genesis which may be regarded as a variant of Ord’s theory. The severity of the symptoms of acute gout were such as he deemed incompatible with their production as a result of simple mechanical irritation by crystals of biurate of soda. Uric acid, he held, must be afforded a humbler rôle than that of a proximate cause. It was, for him, but an epi-phenomenon, the accompaniment of a panarthritis, the origin of which was as follows:—

While not postulating the identity of rheumatoid arthritis in gout, he yet held that both disorders originated in some obscure form of atrophy of the bone substance, and that the degenerative change also overtook the cartilages and fibrous tissues of the joints. Subsequently, there ensued a necrosis in the tissues in and around the joint. The degeneration and subsequent necrosis, he held, were the outcome of a profound “vice of nutrition.” The pain, inflammatory reaction, œdema, and cuticular desquamation were the direct result, he thought, of the necrosis. The excess of uric acid in the blood he referred to leucocytosis, and in part to disintegration of the tissues.

Hepatic Inadequacy

That some obscure connection obtained between gout and hepatic disorder has been for long an axiom in high favour, with both clinicians and pathologists. This hypothesis found its chief exponents in Murchison and subsequently Latham, and to discussion of their individual views we now proceed. The first named authority held gout to be either merely a result or a variety of what he termed lithæmia. In other words, gout was the outcome of a depraved condition of the blood, due to faulty digestion and functional disturbance of the liver.

Now the conditions that lead to functional derangement of the liver are in the main such as favour the development of gout. Nevertheless, such hepatic disturbances do not inevitably culminate in outbreaks of gout, at any rate of classical type; but, unquestionably, such may eventuate in symptoms currently recognised as distinctive of incomplete gout, e.g., headache, palpitation, cramps, dizziness, sleeplessness, etc. Moreover, if the faulty habits leading to such hepatic derangement be persisted in, they are but too likely to induce outbreaks of frank gout. “Articular gout,” said Murchison, “is so to speak a local accident which, though sometimes determined by an injury, yet may occur at any time in persons in whom the normal process by which albuminous matter becomes disintegrated in the liver into urea is persistently deranged.” Following such hepatic disturbance, the secretion of bile decreased with resultant abnormal metabolism of proteins, and in this way was produced an accumulation of uric acid. This, moreover, according to Murchison, was, especially in the later stages of gout, reinforced by the concurrence of renal inadequacy, which he also postulated as a factor in the production of the disorder.

The tendency to lithæmia Murchison held to be hereditary, and in this was supported by Goodhart, who, discussing its occurrence in young children, was strongly of the opinion that it was due not to dietetic irregularities but to a “constitutional tendency on the part of the individual”; a conclusion, as he thought, strongly supported by the fact that it is more commonly met with in the children or descendants of the “gouty.”

But we have to recollect, as Duckworth observes, that lithæmia, “even when persistent and not due to accidental causes, is not by itself gout.” Moreover, gout is not the only morbid condition in which urates are in excess in the blood, for such obtains, e.g., in leukæmia, pneumonia, anæmia, Bright’s disease, etc. Also, underlying Murchison’s theory is the further unwarrantable assumption, viz., that the “gouty” diathesis is identical with the “uric acid” diathesis.