Physical exercise is among the main indications for non-surgical treatment for knee osteoarthritis (OA), however, people with the problem tend to reduce the practice of physical exercise over time, which is a great challenge for professionals who accompany them. An alternative for the maintenance and continuity of supervised physical exercise is to offer it remotely, using telecommunication technological resources for rehabilitation.

To evaluate the effects of two telerehabilitation programs on pain, quality of life, functionality and adherence to exercises in people with knee OA.

This is a randomized, single-blind clinical trial, with pre- and post-intervention assessments and two groups: synchronous (GS), who performed an exercise program via video call through the WhatsApp messaging application; and asynchronous (GA), who performed the same exercise program with the aid of a booklet with the details of the exercises. The exercise program was to be performed 3 times/week in 45-minute sessions for 6 weeks. Participants in both groups underwent an initial assessment and after the 6 weeks of intervention, with physical performance assessment tests (40-meter Fast Walk Test (T-C40m); 30-second Sitting and Standing Test (T-SL30s ) and 9-step Going Up and Down Stairs Test (T-Stairs) and completion of questionnaires (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index- WOMAC; the World Health Organization Quality of Life -WHOQOL-bref and the TAMPA Scale for kinesiophobia - ETC). They also responded to the Exercise Adherence Rating Scale (EARS) only at reassessment.

9 participants were evaluated so far (90% female), 5 from the GS and 4 from the AG, with a mean age of 58.4 years, BMI of 30.34kg/m2. There was no interaction between time and groups in relation to all outcomes evaluated in this study. Significant improvement was observed after 6 weeks in relation to ETC and the domain stiffness and total WOMAC score when comparing the pre and post intervention assessments of both groups together (GS+GA). Regarding the EARS, the GS presented an average of 22.4 (3.6) and the GA, 20.3 (3.3) of 24 possible points in section B, and 32.0 (1.0) and 30 .5 (6.3), respectively, out of 36 possible points in section C, indicating good acceptance of both programs.

From our preliminary results, we observed that both telerehabilitation programs are feasible and well accepted by participants. However, it has not yet been possible to make consistent conclusions regarding the synchronous and asynchronous modality regarding pain, quality of life and functionality.

Telerehabilitation in synchronous and asynchronous modalities can be used as a treatment option to enable continuity of treatment and maintenance of benefits in people with knee OA.