Objective To compare the clinical results of locking compress plate (LCP) as an external fixator and standard external fixator for treatment of tibial open fractures. Methods Between May 2009 and June 2012, 59 patients with tibial open fractures were treated with LCP as an external fixator in 36 patients (group A), and with standard external fixator in 23 patients (group B). There was no significant difference in gender, age, cause of injury, affected side, type of fracture, location, and interval between injury and surgery between 2 groups (P gt; 0.05). The time of fracture healing and incision healing, the time of partial weight-bearing, the range of motion (ROM) of knee and ankle, and complications were compared between 2 groups. Results The incidence of pin-track infection in group A (0) was significantly lower than that in group B (21.7%) (P=0.007). No significant difference was found in the incidence of superficial infection and deep infection of incision, and the time of incision healing between 2 groups (P gt; 0.05). Deep vein thrombosis occurred in 5 cases of group A and 2 cases of group B, showing no significant difference (χ2=0.036, P=0.085). All patients were followed up 15.2 months on average (range, 9-28 months) in group A, and 18.6 months on average (range, 9-47 months) in group B. The malunion rate and nonunion rate showed no significant difference between groups A and B (0 vs. 13.0% and 0 vs. 8.7%, P gt; 0.05); the delayed union rate of group A (2.8%) was significantly lower than that of group B (21.7%) (χ2=5.573, P=0.018). Group A had shorter time of fracture healing, quicker partial weight-bearing, greater ROM of the knee and ankle than group B (P lt; 0.05). Conclusion The LCP external fixator can obtain reliable fixation in treating tibial open fracture, and has good patients’ compliance, so it is helpful to do functional exercise, improve fracture healing and function recovery, and reduce the complication incidence.