OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the scientific evidence currently available about the efficacy and safety of the electronic larynx in speech rehabilitation of patients with larynx cancer after total laryngectomy.

METHODS: Medline and Embase were searched for studies that assessed the use of electronic larynx compared to tracheoesophageal prosthesis, esophageal voice and/or control group, using quality of life and/or auditory-perceptual outcomes. Search strategies combined descriptors and free terms for the technology and disease under analysis. References obtained were evaluated in two stages, by titles and abstracts and in full text. Articles published in English, Spanish or Portuguese were included. No restrictions were made on the type of study. Evidence and recommendations were classified according to the GRADE recommendation.

RESULTS: After elimination of duplicates, 1,232 references were obtained, 142 were selected for evaluation in full text, and 14 studies for data extraction. Given the number and diversity of methodologies and outcomes used by those studies, only outcomes related to quality of life (V-RQOL, VHI, QLQ-C30) and perceptual (speech intelligibility and acceptability) were selected, resulting in 6 articles being included in the final analysis. In general, the results did not point to a better quality of life perceived by the group of patients using electronic larynx in relation to the other groups, nor to its better performance in perceptive terms. The quality of the evidence was classified as of very low quality.

CONCLUSIONS: Almost all the studies included in the analysis were cross-sectional and had a very small sample, which makes impracticable to infer decisive conclusions regarding the better performance of one of the technologies to the detriment of others, whether in quality of life, voice intelligibility or acceptability.