It is quite easy to make statements based on one or two particular cases. But more accurate information can only be achieved with proper research.
According to this scientific article, 15 bone non-union patients saw treatment with Ilizarov frames and another 15 with monorail fixators. The results were compared, and:
"Average duration of application was 8.8months in patients of Ilizarov compared to 8.3months in rail
fixator group. Lengthening achieved in 2 patients of compression distraction was of the average 2.33cm average gain in 3 patients in Ilizarov group compared to 2.5 cm in Rail fixator group. Only 1 patient required split skin grafting as secondary procedure in Rail fixator group compared to 2 patients in Ilizarov group"
"Only 1 patient required split skin grafting as secondary procedure in Rail fixator group compared to 2 patients in Ilizarov group. Further 1 patient in latter group (Ilizarov) required bone grafting."
"According to ASAMI criteria for bone results we had 8 excellent, 5 good, 0 fair and 2 poor results in Ilizarov group, and 9 excellent, 4 good, 1 fair and 1 poor results in Rail fixator group."
You can check the full article itself here:
http://oaji.net/articles/2017/1874-1533622982.pdfAs you may see, monorails handled misaligned and non-united bones quite well, even better in several aspects than Ilizarov.
Handling complications is also dependent on which device the doctor is comfortable with. If a surgeon is more familiar with Ilizarov, of course he/she will praise it. And if another doctor is more experienced in monorail usage, he/she will talk positively about monorail fixators.