Booster sessions for maintaining the effect of neuromuscular exercise and progressive resistance training in hip osteoarthritis: 12-month follow-up from a multicenter cluster-randomized controlled trial.

People with hip osteoarthritis often complete a structured exercise program, but the benefits of supervised exercise can fade once formal sessions end. This trial asked whether adding periodic booster sessions after an initial three-month exercise program helps maintain improvements in physical function, pain, and quality of life better than stopping exercise support altogether. Participants who completed neuromuscular exercise and progressive resistance training were assigned, by treatment cluster, to either four additional group booster sessions spread over the following months or no further supervised intervention. By twelve months, both groups showed some further change in a chair-stand test of functional performance, and in pain and quality-of-life scores, but the differences between the booster group and the no-further-intervention group were small and not statistically significant.

In other words, offering booster sessions did not clearly outperform simply stopping supervised exercise. The main limitation is that this was a single trial testing one specific booster schedule, so it cannot rule out that other formats or more frequent contact might work differently.

If you've finished a supervised exercise program for hip osteoarthritis, a natural question is whether occasional follow-up sessions with a physiotherapist help keep the benefits going. This study looked at exactly that, comparing people who received four extra group exercise sessions spread across several months after their initial program with people who received no further supervised sessions. Both groups showed some change in how many times they could stand up from a chair in thirty seconds, a measure of physical function, as well as in hip pain and quality of life, over the following months.

But the people who got booster sessions did not show a clearly better outcome than those who didn't, and the differences between the two groups were small and could have been due to chance. This doesn't mean booster sessions have no value, but this particular trial did not find evidence that they made a meaningful difference in keeping the exercise benefits going. The main limitation is that this is one trial testing one specific approach to booster sessions.

This is a summary of research, not medical advice. Talk to your own healthcare provider about anything affecting your care.

This trial addresses a practical question many clinicians face after completing an exercise-based program for hip osteoarthritis: does scheduling periodic booster sessions afterward help maintain functional gains, or is continued supervision unnecessary once the structured program ends. In this multicenter, cluster-randomized trial, 160 participants who had completed three months of neuromuscular exercise and progressive resistance training were allocated to either four group-based booster sessions at months one, three, five and seven post-intervention, or no further intervention. The primary outcome, change in the 30-second chair stand test from three to twelve months, showed a mean improvement of 0.8 chair stands in the booster group versus 0.5 in the control group, with a between-group difference of 0.3 (95% CI -0.6 to 1.2), not statistically significant.

Secondary outcomes, HOOS pain and hip-related quality of life, followed a similar pattern: both groups improved somewhat, with wider, overlapping confidence intervals and no statistically significant between-group difference (pain difference 2.9 points, 95% CI -3.8 to 9.6; quality of life difference 5.3 points, 95% CI -2.2 to 12.9). The key contribution here is that this specific low-intensity booster format, four sessions over seven months, did not demonstrate superiority over no further supervised contact for maintaining functional or symptomatic gains. This does not establish that all forms of continued support are ineffective, only that this particular schedule and intensity failed to show a clear added benefit in this population and setting.