Gout, with a section on ocular disease in the gouty

by Llewellyn J. Llewellyn

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.