In this work we compare the results obtained with two different external fixation devices in patients undergoing bone lengthening. The devices studied were the Ilizarov type and the HG, an apparatons developed in our institution. Out of 131 patientes treated by bone lengthening in 147 long bones, 25 bones lengthened with each device were selected at random. Different subjective and objective variables were assessed: age, sex, type of bone, psichological tolerance, patients, confort, nursing, infections, joint stiffness due to musculotendinous retractions, and residual bone deformity. The aim of the study was to analyze if the monolateral frame entailed advantages for our patients. Two main factors were more deeply analysed, namely the quality of the bone callus subjected to lengthening and the presence of both transitory and definitive complications.

In this work we compare the results obtained with two different external fixation devices in patients undergoing bone lengthening. The devices studied were the Ilizarov type and the HG, an apparatons developed in our institution. Out of 131 patientes treated by bone lengthening in 147 long bones, 25 bones lengthened with each device were selected at random. Different subjective and objective variables were assessed: age, sex, type of bone, psichological tolerance, patients, confort, nursing, infections, joint stiffness due to musculotendinous retractions, and residual bone deformity. The aim of the study was to analyze if the monolateral frame entailed advantages for our patients. Two main factors were more deeply analysed, namely the quality of the bone callus subjected to lengthening and the presence of both transitory and definitive complications.