Comparison of “Van Herick’s” method versus “Borrone’s” method for estimating narrow angles

Abstract

Background: Strategies for indirectly assessing the iridocorneal angle aim to be reproducible, reliable, and comparable to gonioscopy for screening in cases of narrow angles and their clinical spectrum. Objectives: The objective of this study is to determine which of the indirect estimation methods of the iridocorneal angle, either the "Van Herick" method or the "Borrone" method, exhibits a higher correlation with gonioscopy in detecting narrow iridocorneal angles in patients at the Ophthalmology outpatient clinic of the Hospital San Borja Arriarán. Materials and methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted with a sample of 32 patients (64 eyes) who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Results were obtained through gonioscopy, identifying narrow angles in 16 eyes and open angles in 48 eyes. Sensitivity and specificity of both methods (Borrone and Van Herick) were calculated in comparison to gonioscopy, using a selected cutoff point. Results: The Borrone method showed a sensitivity of 96% and a specificity of 91%, with a 95% confidence interval, compared to gonioscopy. In contrast, the Van Herick method demonstrated a sensitivity of 77% and a specificity of 82% in relation to gonioscopy. Discussion: The high sensitivity and specificity of the “Borrone” method are attributed to its technical details and its dichotomous nature, making it easier for the operator to determine and interpret. This reduces variability and provides a high correlation with gonioscopy. Conclusions: In this study, the “Borrone” method was found to have a more significant correlation with gonioscopy compared to the “Van Herick” method. Therefore, the “Borrone” method is considered more reliable and reproducible for detecting possible narrow iridocorneal angles, especially in high patient volume settings, such as ophthalmology outpatient clinics.