Background Limb salvage in the presence of posttraumatic tibial bone loss can be accomplished using the traditional Ilizarov method of distraction osteogenesis with circular external fixation. Internal fixation placed at the beginning of the consolidation phase, so-called integrated fixation, may allow for earlier removal of the external fixator but introduces concerns about cross-contamination from the additional open procedure and maintenance of bone regenerate stability. Questions/purposes Among patients deemed eligible for integrated fixation, we sought to determine: (1) Does integrated fixation decrease the time in the external fixator? (2) Is there a difference in the rate of complications between the two groups? (3) Are there differences in functional and radiographic results between integrated fixation and the traditional Ilizarov approach of external fixation alone? Methods Between January 2006 and December 2012, we treated 58 patients (58 tibiae) with posttraumatic tibial bone loss using the Ilizarov method. Of those, 30 patients (52%) were treated with the ''classic technique'' (external fixator alone) and 28 (48%) were treated with the ''integrated technique'' (a combination of an external fixator and plating or insertion of an intramedullary nail). During that period, the general indications for use of the integrated technique were closed physes, no active infection, and a healed soft tissue envelope located at the intended internal fixation site; the remainder of the patients were treated with the classic technique. Followup on 30 (100%) and 28 (100%) patients in the classic and integrated techniques, respectively, was achieved at a minimum of 1 year (mean, 3 years; range, 1-8 years). Adverse events were reported as problems, obstacles, and complications according to the One of the authors (ATF) lists the following relevant financial activities outside of this work and/or any other relationships or activities that readers could perceive to have influenced, or that give the appearance of potentially influencing, this manuscript: consultant for Smith & Nephew, Inc (Memphis, TN, USA), and Synthes (Paoli, PA, USA) in the amount of less than USD 10,000. One of the authors (SRR) lists the following relevant financial activities outside of this work and/or any other relationships or activities that readers could perceive to have influenced, or that give the appearance of potentially influencing, this manuscript: Smith & Nephew, Inc in the amount of less than USD 10,000. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 1 editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 1 neither advocates nor endorses the use of any treatment, drug, or device. Readers are encouraged to always seek additional information, including FDAapproval status, of any drug or device prior to clinical use. Each author certifies that his or her institution approved the human protocol for this investi...