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.
gonioscopy, iridocorneal angle, glaucoma