Anterior vs. Lateral Approach in Hip Fracture Surgery: What's Best for Recovery? 🦴
In this inaugural episode of the AHF Podcast's new series 'Evidence and Impact,' host Joe Schwab delves into a recent award-winning paper by Woolnough and colleagues on the effectiveness of the anterior approach in hip arthroplasty for recovery. 📊 The study, titled 'The Anterior Approach Does Not Improve Recovery after Hemiarthroplasty for Hip Fractures,' was published in the Journal of Arthroplasty in 2025. The trial involves a comprehensive comparison between anterior and lateral surgical approaches, focusing on elderly hip fracture patients. 🏥 Joe dissects the methodology, findings, and limitations of the study, questioning whether the anterior approach truly offers a recovery advantage. 🧐 Key takeaways include the feasibility of randomized controlled trials in this demographic, the importance of functional outcomes, and the realization that surgical approach may not be a decisive factor for recovery. 🎓 Join the discussion in the comments and share your thoughts on this fascinating topic! 💬
Zotero
For those of you who use Zotero to mange your references, you can access the AHF Podcast Evidence & Impact Zotero group by clicking on the following link:
https://www.zotero.org/groups/6125247/ahfpod_evidenceimpact
Study Paper
Woolnough T, Horton I, Garceau S, Beaulé PE, Feibel RJ, Gofton W, et al. The John Charnley Award: The Anterior Approach Does Not Improve Recovery after Hemiarthroplasty for Femoral Neck Fracture. A Randomized Controlled Trial. The Journal of Arthroplasty 2025;40:S17-S24.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2025.04.030.
Additional resources used in preparing this video:
- Hsieh Y-W, Wang C-H, Wu S-C, Chen P-C, Sheu C-F, Hsieh C-L. Establishing the Minimal Clinically Important Difference of the Barthel Index in Stroke Patients. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2007;21:233–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1545968306294729.
- Collin C, Wade DT, Davies S, Horne V. The Barthel ADL Index: a reliability study. Int Disabil Stud 1988;10:61–3. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288809164103.
- Pedersen TJ, Lauritsen JM. Routine functional assessment for hip fracture patients. Acta Orthop 2016;87:374–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2016.1197534.
- Pedersen TJ, Bogh LNB, Lauritsen JM. Improved functional outcome after hip fracture is associated with duration of rehabilitation, but not with waiting time for rehabilitation. Dan Med J 2017;64:A5348.
- Winters AM, Hartog LC, Roijen H, Brohet RM, Kamper AM. Relationship between clinical outcomes and Dutch frailty score among elderly patients who underwent surgery for hip fracture. Clin Interv Aging 2018;13:2481–6. https://doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S181497.
- Unnanuntana A, Jarusriwanna A, Nepal S. Validity and responsiveness of Barthel index for measuring functional recovery after hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fracture. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2018;138:1671–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-018-3020-z.
- Marsault LV, Ryg J, Madsen CF, Holsgaard-Larsen A, Lauritsen J, Schmal H. Objectively Measured Physical Activity and Its Association with Functional Independence, Quality of Life and In-Hospital Course of Recovery in Elderly Patients with Proximal Femur Fractures: A Prospective Cohort Study. Rehabil Res Pract 2020;2020:5907652.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Joseph M. Schwab (00:01):
Picture this.
An 85-year-old woman livingindependently trips on a rug,
falls down and breaks her hip.
In the hospital, she'sfrightened in pain and her
family is asking the samequestions.
We as surgeons hear every day,what's her recovery gonna look
like?
Will she walk again?
Will she be able to go backhome?
(00:24):
As surgeons, we have to decidenot only how to fix the
fracture, but also how to giveher the best possible chance at
independence.
And one of the debates has beenwhether the surgical approach
itself anterior posteriorlateral, can make that
difference.
Well, in today's episode, we'regoing to take a closer look at a
(00:45):
recent award-winning paper thatasks exactly that question.
We'll walk through the studydesign, dig into the methods and
the results, and by the end,I'll give you my three key
takeaways.
(01:17):
Hello and welcome to the AHFPodcast.
I'm your host, Joe Schwab.
Today we're launching somethingnew.
I call it evidence and Impact.
It's like an AHF journal clubwhere research meets reality.
In this series, we'll be takinga close look at important papers
in hip arthroplasty, especiallythose that shape how we think
(01:41):
about anterior approach.
The goal isn't just to summarizethe data, but to dig into the
methods and the results and theimpact.
We'll ask, what do these studiestell us?
What do they leave unansweredand how should they influence
the way we think and practice?
If at all, and for the firstepisode, we're starting with the
(02:03):
John Charley Award-winning paperby Woolnough and colleagues
published in the Journal ofArthroplasty in 2025.
The title, the"AnteriorApproach, does not improve
Recovery after Hemi Arthroplastyfor Hip Fractures." I've added a
link to the paper in thedescription, but just be aware
(02:24):
it's not available.
Open access, so you have to havea subscription to the Journal of
Arthroplasty to read the fulltext.
I've also added links to someadditional references that I
looked at in my preparation.
Are you ready?
Let's take a look.
The author set up a randomizedcontrolled trial comparing
anterior approach, HemiArthroplasty with lateral
(02:46):
approach.
Hemi Arthroplasty in HipFracture Patients.
This was a single center studycarried out at the University of
Ottawa, an academic tertiarycare hospital in Canada.
The trial involved multiplefellowship trained arthroplasty
surgeons, all of whom regularlyuse their approach of choice in
their elective practices.
They enrolled just over ahundred patients, all with
(03:08):
displaced femoral neckfractures, and an average age
was around 81, so this was atypical elderly hip fracture
population except.
They excluded anyone withdementia or cognitive
dysfunction.
Two things we commonly see inthis patient population.
Most patients receive cementedstems, which I think reflects
common practice in that sort ofsetting in Canada, in an
(03:31):
academic practice.
And the study design waspragmatic, aiming to mirror real
world care as closely aspossible.
Now, the title of the paper isinteresting, does not improve
Recovery.
Right away I found myselfwondering, does their data
really justify such a definitiveclaim, and what do they actually
(03:55):
mean by recovery?
Well, they defined recoveryusing functional scores like the
Barthel Index and the EQ-5D.
Both of those focus onindependence and quality of
life, which are importantmeasures, but it's worth
remembering that recovery is apretty broad term.
Surgeons, patients, and evenfamilies might define it
(04:17):
differently.
So what did they actually find?
Well, when you look at theresults, there really wasn't
much to separate the two groups.
The patients in the anteriorapproach arm didn't bounce back
any better than those in thelateral approach arm.
Their Barthel scores, theirEQ-5D Quality of Life scores
basically came out about thesame, at least statistically
(04:39):
complication rates likeinfection were also similar.
Mortality at follow-up, similar,even length of hospital stay
wasn't significantly different.
So despite this reputation thatanterior approach has in
elective hip replacement,quicker recovery, yada, yada,
yada, in this group of older,frail hip patients, that
(05:01):
advantage wasn't there, at leastaccording to the authors.
Now, here's where things get alittle more interesting.
This is a prospective randomizedcontrol trial, which means they
enrolled patients moving forwardin time rather than reviewing a
bunch of patients they hadoperated on in the past.
In order to do that, they had todetermine how many patients they
(05:25):
needed to enroll in the study toanswer their question.
I'm sure you know this already,but researchers often do this by
using previous data from otherstudies.
Here's where the first red flagcomes in.
They powered the study to detecta three point or greater
difference in the Barthel 20score.
But in hip fracture patients,the minimally clinically
(05:47):
important difference is closerto two points.
That means their study may havebeen too small to see a
difference that actuallymatters.
In fact, to really be confidentin detecting a clinically
meaningful difference.
They probably would've neededsomething more like 90 or more
patients in each group ratherthan the 47 per group that they
(06:08):
calculated.
And this is especially importantwhen your results show no
difference between your twogroups because absence of
evidence is not the same asevidence of absence, and that is
the risk of a type two error.
So where did that three pointestimate come from?
Well, the author cite a study instroke patients.
(06:30):
I don't have to tell you.
Stroke patients are not hipfracture patients.
Using that as the basis for yourpower calculation raises
questions about whether thistrial was designed to truly
answer its own researchquestion.
Now, this may all seem a bitnitpicky on my part, but if you
look at table two, you canactually see a gap between the
(06:51):
anterior and lateral groups thatseems to widen between six weeks
and three months.
With a larger cohort and theright minimally, clinically
important difference.
If that had been used, thatdifference might well have
reached statisticalsignificance.
Now, do I know that it wouldhave, Nope, but that's kind of
(07:12):
the point.
So to sum up, the main findingwas no statistically significant
difference in recovery betweenanterior and lateral approaches
for hemi arthroplasty in hipfracture patients.
The more accurate interpretationis that no difference was
detected, and that is not thesame as proving the anterior
(07:33):
approach has no benefit.
Phew.
So let's just pause for a secondand catch our breath.
We've talked about what theauthors meant by recovery, and
we've raised some questionsabout sample size and the risk
of a type two error.
But what do you think do thesechoices affect how you read the
results?
Drop me a comment below withyour thoughts.
(07:55):
I would really like to know, andI wanna say, I'm not saying the
authors did a bad job or thatthere's nothing valuable here
far from it.
In fact, this paper won thecoveted Sir John Charley Award.
That's a scientific award fromthe Hip Society for innovative
research, both clinical andbasic encompassing important
(08:16):
advances in the management ofhip disorders.
There are definitely some strongpoints in this paper, but there
are some real limitations.
So why don't we take a closerlook at the good, the bad, and
the ugly.
First the good.
This was a strong randomizeddesign.
A true RCT in hip fracturepatients is no small feat, and
(08:39):
the authors deserve credit forpulling it off, and they focused
on outcomes that really matter.
They didn't get lost in surgicaldetails like blood loss or
operative time.
Instead, they looked at measuresof independence and quality of
life, outcomes that aremeaningful for patients and
families.
And the clinical question issuper clear.
(09:00):
They didn't overcomplicatethings.
They asked directly, does theanterior approach actually help
hip fracture patients recoverbetter?
That kind of focus isrefreshing.
Now, the bad.
The trial was definitelyunderpowered for functional
outcomes in this population.
The sample size was simply notlarge enough to detect smaller,
(09:23):
but still meaningfuldifferences, and that's a real
barrier to a meaningfulconclusion.
Also, there are reasonablequestions about how
generalizable this study is.
These results reflect a specificpatient population, hip
fracture, patients with nocognitive dysfunction.
A specific group of surgeons andone health system.
(09:44):
It's hard to say whether thesame findings would hold true in
different countries withdifferent rehab resources or
different levels of surgeonexperience, let alone in hip
fracture patients with some formof cognitive dysfunction, which
is common.
To their credit, the authorstalk about this in their
limitation section and simplyput, the conclusions are
(10:07):
overstated.
The authors conclude that quote.
The results of the study showequivalence, but not superiority
of the anterior approach overlateral approach in patients
undergoing hip hemi arthroplastyfor fracture.
But the more accurate way to putit is that no difference was
(10:27):
detected because thosestatements are not the same.
Finally the ugly.
So the ugly truth is this, whenit comes to hip fracture
patients, the choice of surgicalapproach may not be the dominant
factor in recovery.
Hip fracture patients areincredibly complex.
They're frail.
(10:48):
They often have multiplecomorbidities and many are
cognitively impaired.
Even if one surgical approachhas technical advantages, the
patient's overall condition maysimply overwhelm the signal.
So if you've made it this far,you probably want to know what
we can actually learn from thisstudy.
Well, I think there are threebig takeaways.
(11:10):
First, RCTs in hip fracture arepossible.
This study shows that even infrail elderly patients, we can
run a randomized controlledtrial and get meaningful data.
That's encouraging'cause itopens the door for more high
quality research in this space.
Second, functional outcomesmatter.
(11:32):
At the end of the day, patientsand families care less about
incision length or operativetime than they do about whether
someone can get out of bed, walkand live independently.
Using validated tools like theBarthel Index and the EQ-5D
helps us measure something thatreally matters.
And third surgical approach maynot be a silver bullet, and we
(11:54):
should remember that at leastbased on this trial.
The anterior approach doesn'tclearly give patients a recovery
advantage after hip fracture.
That means our efforts areprobably better spent on a
bigger picture, optimizingperioperative care, rehab, and
multidisciplinary support,rather than focusing only on
(12:16):
which way we get into the hipjoint.
Do your key takeaways differfrom mine?
Drop them in the comments so wecan continue the discussion.
And that brings me back to ourpatient, that 85-year-old woman
who tripped on a rug.
She doesn't really care whetherher incision is anterior or
lateral.
What she and her family careabout is whether she'll walk
(12:38):
again.
Whether she'll go home andwhether she can get back to her
normal life.
This study suggests thatapproach may not be the biggest
driver of recovery, but based onits limitations, I would say the
jury is still out.
So what do you think?
Do you agree with this review ordo you see it differently?
(13:00):
Was there something I missed oran angle you think deserves more
attention?
I'd love to hear your thoughts,drop your comments, critiques or
ideas below, and we'll keep thatconversation going.
And since this is our very firstevidence and impact episode, I'd
really value your input.
Did you like this format?
Do you have any suggestions forhow we can make future evidence
(13:22):
and impact episodes even better?
Or maybe there's a paper you'dlike to see us review here?
Let me know.
Your feedback will help shapeour direction.
Thank you for joining me forthis episode of the AHF podcast.
As always, please take a momentto like and subscribe so we can
keep the lights on and keepsharing great content.
(13:44):
Just like this.
Please also drop any topic ideasor feedback in the comments
below.
You can find the AHF podcast onApple Podcasts, Spotify, or in
any of your favorite podcastapps, as well as in video form
on YouTube slash at anterior hipfoundation.
(14:04):
All one word, episodes of theAHF podcast come out on Fridays.
I'm your host, Joe Schwab,asking you to keep those hips
happy, healthy, and fracturefree.
Picture this.
An 85-year-old woman livingindependently trips on a rug,
falls down and breaks her hip.
In the hospital, she'sfrightened in pain and her
family is asking the samequestions.
We as surgeons hear every day,what's her recovery gonna look
like?
Will she walk again?
Will she be able to go backhome?
(00:24):
As surgeons, we have to decidenot only how to fix the
fracture, but also how to giveher the best possible chance at
independence.
And one of the debates has beenwhether the surgical approach
itself anterior posteriorlateral, can make that
difference.
Well, in today's episode, we'regoing to take a closer look at a
(00:45):
recent award-winning paper thatasks exactly that question.
We'll walk through the studydesign, dig into the methods and
the results, and by the end,I'll give you my three key
takeaways.
(01:17):
Hello and welcome to the AHFPodcast.
I'm your host, Joe Schwab.
Today we're launching somethingnew.
I call it evidence and Impact.
It's like an AHF journal clubwhere research meets reality.
In this series, we'll be takinga close look at important papers
in hip arthroplasty, especiallythose that shape how we think
(01:41):
about anterior approach.
The goal isn't just to summarizethe data, but to dig into the
methods and the results and theimpact.
We'll ask, what do these studiestell us?
What do they leave unansweredand how should they influence
the way we think and practice?
If at all, and for the firstepisode, we're starting with the
(02:03):
John Charley Award-winning paperby Woolnough and colleagues
published in the Journal ofArthroplasty in 2025.
The title, the"AnteriorApproach, does not improve
Recovery after Hemi Arthroplastyfor Hip Fractures." I've added a
link to the paper in thedescription, but just be aware
(02:24):
it's not available.
Open access, so you have to havea subscription to the Journal of
Arthroplasty to read the fulltext.
I've also added links to someadditional references that I
looked at in my preparation.
Are you ready?
Let's take a look.
The author set up a randomizedcontrolled trial comparing
anterior approach, HemiArthroplasty with lateral
(02:46):
approach.
Hemi Arthroplasty in HipFracture Patients.
This was a single center studycarried out at the University of
Ottawa, an academic tertiarycare hospital in Canada.
The trial involved multiplefellowship trained arthroplasty
surgeons, all of whom regularlyuse their approach of choice in
their elective practices.
They enrolled just over ahundred patients, all with
(03:08):
displaced femoral neckfractures, and an average age
was around 81, so this was atypical elderly hip fracture
population except.
They excluded anyone withdementia or cognitive
dysfunction.
Two things we commonly see inthis patient population.
Most patients receive cementedstems, which I think reflects
common practice in that sort ofsetting in Canada, in an
(03:31):
academic practice.
And the study design waspragmatic, aiming to mirror real
world care as closely aspossible.
Now, the title of the paper isinteresting, does not improve
Recovery.
Right away I found myselfwondering, does their data
really justify such a definitiveclaim, and what do they actually
(03:55):
mean by recovery?
Well, they defined recoveryusing functional scores like the
Barthel Index and the EQ-5D.
Both of those focus onindependence and quality of
life, which are importantmeasures, but it's worth
remembering that recovery is apretty broad term.
Surgeons, patients, and evenfamilies might define it
(04:17):
differently.
So what did they actually find?
Well, when you look at theresults, there really wasn't
much to separate the two groups.
The patients in the anteriorapproach arm didn't bounce back
any better than those in thelateral approach arm.
Their Barthel scores, theirEQ-5D Quality of Life scores
basically came out about thesame, at least statistically
(04:39):
complication rates likeinfection were also similar.
Mortality at follow-up, similar,even length of hospital stay
wasn't significantly different.
So despite this reputation thatanterior approach has in
elective hip replacement,quicker recovery, yada, yada,
yada, in this group of older,frail hip patients, that
(05:01):
advantage wasn't there, at leastaccording to the authors.
Now, here's where things get alittle more interesting.
This is a prospective randomizedcontrol trial, which means they
enrolled patients moving forwardin time rather than reviewing a
bunch of patients they hadoperated on in the past.
In order to do that, they had todetermine how many patients they
(05:25):
needed to enroll in the study toanswer their question.
I'm sure you know this already,but researchers often do this by
using previous data from otherstudies.
Here's where the first red flagcomes in.
They powered the study to detecta three point or greater
difference in the Barthel 20score.
But in hip fracture patients,the minimally clinically
(05:47):
important difference is closerto two points.
That means their study may havebeen too small to see a
difference that actuallymatters.
In fact, to really be confidentin detecting a clinically
meaningful difference.
They probably would've neededsomething more like 90 or more
patients in each group ratherthan the 47 per group that they
(06:08):
calculated.
And this is especially importantwhen your results show no
difference between your twogroups because absence of
evidence is not the same asevidence of absence, and that is
the risk of a type two error.
So where did that three pointestimate come from?
Well, the author cite a study instroke patients.
(06:30):
I don't have to tell you.
Stroke patients are not hipfracture patients.
Using that as the basis for yourpower calculation raises
questions about whether thistrial was designed to truly
answer its own researchquestion.
Now, this may all seem a bitnitpicky on my part, but if you
look at table two, you canactually see a gap between the
(06:51):
anterior and lateral groups thatseems to widen between six weeks
and three months.
With a larger cohort and theright minimally, clinically
important difference.
If that had been used, thatdifference might well have
reached statisticalsignificance.
Now, do I know that it wouldhave, Nope, but that's kind of
(07:12):
the point.
So to sum up, the main findingwas no statistically significant
difference in recovery betweenanterior and lateral approaches
for hemi arthroplasty in hipfracture patients.
The more accurate interpretationis that no difference was
detected, and that is not thesame as proving the anterior
(07:33):
approach has no benefit.
Phew.
So let's just pause for a secondand catch our breath.
We've talked about what theauthors meant by recovery, and
we've raised some questionsabout sample size and the risk
of a type two error.
But what do you think do thesechoices affect how you read the
results?
Drop me a comment below withyour thoughts.
(07:55):
I would really like to know, andI wanna say, I'm not saying the
authors did a bad job or thatthere's nothing valuable here
far from it.
In fact, this paper won thecoveted Sir John Charley Award.
That's a scientific award fromthe Hip Society for innovative
research, both clinical andbasic encompassing important
(08:16):
advances in the management ofhip disorders.
There are definitely some strongpoints in this paper, but there
are some real limitations.
So why don't we take a closerlook at the good, the bad, and
the ugly.
First the good.
This was a strong randomizeddesign.
A true RCT in hip fracturepatients is no small feat, and
(08:39):
the authors deserve credit forpulling it off, and they focused
on outcomes that really matter.
They didn't get lost in surgicaldetails like blood loss or
operative time.
Instead, they looked at measuresof independence and quality of
life, outcomes that aremeaningful for patients and
families.
And the clinical question issuper clear.
(09:00):
They didn't overcomplicatethings.
They asked directly, does theanterior approach actually help
hip fracture patients recoverbetter?
That kind of focus isrefreshing.
Now, the bad.
The trial was definitelyunderpowered for functional
outcomes in this population.
The sample size was simply notlarge enough to detect smaller,
(09:23):
but still meaningfuldifferences, and that's a real
barrier to a meaningfulconclusion.
Also, there are reasonablequestions about how
generalizable this study is.
These results reflect a specificpatient population, hip
fracture, patients with nocognitive dysfunction.
A specific group of surgeons andone health system.
(09:44):
It's hard to say whether thesame findings would hold true in
different countries withdifferent rehab resources or
different levels of surgeonexperience, let alone in hip
fracture patients with some formof cognitive dysfunction, which
is common.
To their credit, the authorstalk about this in their
limitation section and simplyput, the conclusions are
(10:07):
overstated.
The authors conclude that quote.
The results of the study showequivalence, but not superiority
of the anterior approach overlateral approach in patients
undergoing hip hemi arthroplastyfor fracture.
But the more accurate way to putit is that no difference was
(10:27):
detected because thosestatements are not the same.
Finally the ugly.
So the ugly truth is this, whenit comes to hip fracture
patients, the choice of surgicalapproach may not be the dominant
factor in recovery.
Hip fracture patients areincredibly complex.
They're frail.
(10:48):
They often have multiplecomorbidities and many are
cognitively impaired.
Even if one surgical approachhas technical advantages, the
patient's overall condition maysimply overwhelm the signal.
So if you've made it this far,you probably want to know what
we can actually learn from thisstudy.
Well, I think there are threebig takeaways.
(11:10):
First, RCTs in hip fracture arepossible.
This study shows that even infrail elderly patients, we can
run a randomized controlledtrial and get meaningful data.
That's encouraging'cause itopens the door for more high
quality research in this space.
Second, functional outcomesmatter.
(11:32):
At the end of the day, patientsand families care less about
incision length or operativetime than they do about whether
someone can get out of bed, walkand live independently.
Using validated tools like theBarthel Index and the EQ-5D
helps us measure something thatreally matters.
And third surgical approach maynot be a silver bullet, and we
(11:54):
should remember that at leastbased on this trial.
The anterior approach doesn'tclearly give patients a recovery
advantage after hip fracture.
That means our efforts areprobably better spent on a
bigger picture, optimizingperioperative care, rehab, and
multidisciplinary support,rather than focusing only on
(12:16):
which way we get into the hipjoint.
Do your key takeaways differfrom mine?
Drop them in the comments so wecan continue the discussion.
And that brings me back to ourpatient, that 85-year-old woman
who tripped on a rug.
She doesn't really care whetherher incision is anterior or
lateral.
What she and her family careabout is whether she'll walk
(12:38):
again.
Whether she'll go home andwhether she can get back to her
normal life.
This study suggests thatapproach may not be the biggest
driver of recovery, but based onits limitations, I would say the
jury is still out.
So what do you think?
Do you agree with this review ordo you see it differently?
(13:00):
Was there something I missed oran angle you think deserves more
attention?
I'd love to hear your thoughts,drop your comments, critiques or
ideas below, and we'll keep thatconversation going.
And since this is our very firstevidence and impact episode, I'd
really value your input.
Did you like this format?
Do you have any suggestions forhow we can make future evidence
(13:22):
and impact episodes even better?
Or maybe there's a paper you'dlike to see us review here?
Let me know.
Your feedback will help shapeour direction.
Thank you for joining me forthis episode of the AHF podcast.
As always, please take a momentto like and subscribe so we can
keep the lights on and keepsharing great content.
(13:44):
Just like this.
Please also drop any topic ideasor feedback in the comments
below.
You can find the AHF podcast onApple Podcasts, Spotify, or in
any of your favorite podcastapps, as well as in video form
on YouTube slash at anterior hipfoundation.
(14:04):
All one word, episodes of theAHF podcast come out on Fridays.
I'm your host, Joe Schwab,asking you to keep those hips
happy, healthy, and fracturefree.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.