Abstract:Objective To compare the clinical effects of bone transport surgery with Ilizarov ring external fixator and Orthofix external fixator in the treatment of tibial bone defects. Methods Seventy-two patients with tibial bone defect from April 2014 to December 2016 were retrospectively studied and were divided into group A (Ilizarov ring external fixator, n=36) and group B (Orthofix external fixator, n=36). All patients were followed up to the extraction time of external fixator. Intra- and post-operative related parameters, length of bone lengthening, healing index, and external fixation index (the time needed for regenerating bone 1 cm), bone regeneration ratio bone healing time, bone mineralization duration, shelf-carring time and postoperative complication rate were evaluated and compared between two groups. The tibial recovery situation was assessed by the Johner-Wruhs criteria. Results Compared with group B, the operation time decreased, and intraoperative blood loss increased in group A (P<0.05). However, there were no significant differences in hospital stay, follow-up time, healing time, bone lengthening length, healing index, the ratio of bone regeneration, external fixation index, bone mineralization time and shelf-carring time between two groups (all P>0.05). The excellent recovery rate in group A was higher than that in group B (83.33% vs 58.33%, P<0.05). There was no significant difference in total incidence rate of complication between two groups (72.22% vs 75.00%, P>0.05), but the incidence of nail tract infection and fracture malunion was statistically lower(P<0.05), and the incidence of foot drooping was statistically higher in group A compared with group B(P<0.01). Conclusion The therapeutic effect of Ilizarov ring external fixation is better than that of Orthofix external fixation in the surgery treatment of tibial bone defect with lower incidence of post-operative bone transport and higher probability of foot drop.