Defining the Osteoarthritis Patient: Back to the Future

Abstract

The history of osteoarthritis (OA) is important because it can help broaden our perspective on past and present controversies. The naming of OA, beginning with Heberden's nodes, is itself a fascinating story. According to Albert Hoffa, R. Llewellyn Jones and Archibald Edward Garrod, the name OA was introduced in the mid-19th century by surgeon Richard von Volkmann who distinguished it from rheumatoid arthritis and gout. Others preferred the terms 'chronical rheumatism', 'senile arthritis', 'hypertrophic arthritis' or 'arthritis deformans'. A similar narrative applies to the concept of OA affecting the whole joint vs. the 'wear-and-tear' hypothesis, inflammation and the role of the central nervous system (CNS). In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Garrods (father and son) and Hermann Senator argued that OA was a whole joint disease, and that inflammation played a major role in its progression. Garrod Jnr and John Spender also linked OA to a neurogenic lesion 'outside the joint'. The remaining 20th century was no less dynamic, with major advances in basic science, diagnostics, treatments, surgical interventions and technologies. Today, OA is characterized as a multi-disease with inflammation, immune and CNS dysfunction playing central roles in whole joint damage, injury progression, pain and disability. In the current 'omics' era (genomics, proteomics and metabolomics), we owe a great debt to past physicians and surgeons who dared to think 'outside-the-box' to explain and treat OA. Over 130 years later, despite these developments, we still don't fully understand the unravelling complexities of OA, and we still don't have a cure.