How does the history fit into this?
I see that I've stumbled onto a controversial topic. Speaking as a layperson, the "escharitic agent" mentioned in the section on History seems to have nothing to do with the procedure as it is currently practiced. Whatever the controversy is, could someone please clarify whether or not this agent is still used, why the term "chemosurgery" applies to the current procedure, and also why the current procedure is known as "Mohs surgery"?
--W.F.Galway (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
1. Escharitic agent has nothing to do with what is currently practiced. Apparently the paste has 2 effect: a. Anesthetic - which is good for surgery. b. Escharitic - which is bad for wound healing. There is no benefit for using an escharitic agent in surgery - so that is why injectable anesthetic like lidocaine is currently used - it causes no tissue destruction.
2. The term "chemosurgery" is a carry over and is occasionally seen in medical billing. It must have started in the day when Mohs surgery was being performed with the paste, and when it switched over to fresh frozen tissue, the term sticks. Chemosurgery has nothing to do with the way how Mohs surgery is being used today. But we can't change what we can't change.
Thanks for your eyes on the soundproofing article. It has been subject to the usual patchwork editing that many articles receive on a normal wiki, and as a result it does not have much cohesion or reading flow. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)