Professional Documents
Culture Documents
See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Neurourology and Urodynamics 32:43–47 (2013)
Aims: Urinary incontinence and OAB are associated with increased falls risk in older people suggesting a potential
relationship between bladder functioning and control of gait. To begin to understand the possible interaction between
gait and bladder control this exploratory study aimed to examine the effects of controlling the bladder on gait param-
eters in healthy adult women. Methods: Thirty-six continent women (mean age 50.8 15.8 years), participated in
this observational cohort study. Subjects walked three times along an electronic walkway under three different bladder
conditions; first desire to void (FDV), strong desire to void (SDV), and post void (PV). Spatial and temporal parameters
of gait and continence status were recorded for each condition. Results: A significant reduction in gait velocity
(P < 0.025) was found at the SDV compared with the PV condition. Stride length decreased significantly (P < 0.001) at
the SDV compared with the FDV and PV conditions. No significant differences were found between FDV and PV
conditions. In addition, the variability of gait increased significantly with respect to cadence (P < 0.05) and stride times
(P < 0.05) at the SDV compared to the PV condition. This was not observed between the FDV and the PV conditions,
nor the FDV and the SDV. Conclusion: In healthy continent women, speed and rhythmicity of gait are different
when a strong desire to void is experienced. This suggests an interaction may exist between urinary bladder control
and control of gait. Further investigation is necessary to understand this relationship and begin to explain the
increased risk of falls associated with urinary bladder functioning. Neurourol. Urodynam. 32:43–47, 2013.
ß 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Key words: attention; falls; gait; gait changes; urinary bladder control; urinary incontinence; variability
Variable PV FDV SDV ANOVA P-value SDV vs. PV SDV vs. FDV FDV vs. PV
Velocity (ms1) 1.37 (0.18) 1.39 (0.19) 1.32 (0.19) 0.006a 0.008a 0.030 0.857
Cadence (steps per minute) 118 (7) 119 (8) 119 (9) 0.658 — — —
Spatial data
Stride length (L) (m) 1.40 (0.14) 1.40 (0.15) 1.32 (0.14) <0.001a <0.001a <0.001a 0.89
Stride length(R) (m) 1.39 (0.14) 1.40 (0.15) 1.33 (0.14) <0.001a <0.001a <0.001a 0.98
Temporal data
Stride time (L) (s) 1.02 (0.06) 1.01 (0.07) 1.02 (0.08) 0.909 — — —
Stride time (R) (s) 1.02 (0.06) 1.01 (0.07) 1.01 (0.08) 0.823 — — —
PV, post void; FDV, first desire to void; SDV, strong desire to void.
a
Significant result (P < 0.025; n ¼ 36).
void led to compensatory adjustments in these elements of while reaching a suitable and safe place to void, then control-
gait. Intuitively it might have been anticipated that gait veloc- ling a full bladder in this situation can be seen as an attention
ity and stride length would have increased at SDV, especially demanding task. As continence was maintained by all partic-
as the walkway was positioned so that participants gait was ipants in this study, there was no deterioration in the bladder
assessed as part of their route to the bathroom, however this control task, therefore, we hypothesize that the observed
was not found to be the case. Our study also showed increased changes in gait represented a prioritization of bladder control
variability in some temporal gait parameters (cadence and over gait control as a consequence of a divided attention situ-
stride times) at SDV. It is possible that the strong desire to ation. A study designed to determine the effects of urge uri-
void potentially interferes with the cortical control of gait nary incontinence (UUI) on performance of voluntary
resulting in a concomitant deterioration in rhythmic gait behavioral tasks that depend on cognitive processes in the
quality. As this was a cross sectional study it was not possible prefrontal cortex17 found that women with UUI had signifi-
to determine causality of the relationship between controlling cantly poorer working memory than continent women. This
a full bladder and the gait changes we observed. There are, suggested that UUI in this instance was attentionally
however, a number of potential explanations for these demanding resulting in an impaired ability to effectively
results. manage the two tasks. Divided attention is known to impact
It is possible that this experiment represents a dual task or on temporal and spatial parameters of gait18 particularly in
divided attention situation. Divided attention theory postu- older people where an increased risk of falls is the result.7,19
lates that attentional capacity, defined as a person’s informa- In studies investigating divided attention the primary task is
tion processing capacity, is a finite resource and each activity most commonly postural control or walking and a variety of
undertaken will require a proportion of the available resource. secondary tasks have been investigated including: cognitive
In a dual task paradigm, if the two tasks combined require tasks such as verbal memory tasks,20 arithmetic tasks,21
more information processing capacity than is available then motor tasks such as coin transference22 or carrying trays with
the performance of one or both tasks will be affected through full cups of water23 and visual–spatial tasks such as balancing
mechanisms of prioritization of one task over the other, or a in a moving room.24 No study to date has focused on
deterioration in the performance of both. If the sensation of a controlling the urinary bladder as a secondary task, although
strong desire to void leads to the requirement for concentra- this is a fundamental and regularly performed human
tion and higher executive functioning to maintain continence activity. However, a recent study25 found a significant
TABLE II. Results of CoV for Velocity, Cadence, Spatial, and Temporal Gait Parameters Under the Three Tested Bladder Conditions
Variable PV FDV SDV SDV vs. PV SDV vs. FDV FDV vs. PV
Velocity 2.70 (1.83–4.71) 3.65 (1.82–5.92) 3.49 (1.94–6.58) 0.056 0.76 0.26
Cadence 1.59 (1.29–2.33) 1.75 (1.10–2.88) 2.28 (1.29–2.96) 0.014a 0.48 0.55
Spatial data
Stride length (L) 2.13 (1.45–2.71) 2.35 (0.87–3.46) 2.51 (1.28–4.40) 0.32 0.53 0.89
Stride length (R) 2.20 (1.45–2.71) 2.35 (0.87–3.46) 2.51 (1.28–4.40) 0.17 0.63 0.93
Temporal data
Stride time (L) 1.67 (0.89–2.59) 1.92 (1.12–3.43) 2.10 (1.39–3.39) 0.009a 0.19 0.08a
Stride time (R) 1.76 (0.94–2.45) 1.72 (1.25–3.10) 2.13 (1.40–2.94) 0.032a 0.95 0.37
PV, post void; FDV, first desire to void; SDV, strong desire to void.
a
Significant result (P < 0.05; n ¼ 36).