In the scar revision, intradermal suture with nonabsorbable suture materials was usually performed to prevent scar widening. In the literature some authors described interrupted intradermal suture using nonabsorbable suture material for the prevention of postoperative scar widening, so called Dermostitch. Others described subcuticular running suture using nonabsorbable suture material for the same purpose. But there was no report for the comparison of postoperative scar widening between above mentioned two methods. We performed two different types of intradermal suture methods in 15 patients. The first method is intradermal buried interrupted suture, Dermoid stitch, and skin suture using nylon 6-0(Group I) at one-half site of patient,s scar. The second one is intradermal buried interrupted suture using nylon 6-0 at deep dermofat layer, intradermal continuous running suture using Prolene 4-0 and skin tape for coaptation of the skin at another half side scar(Group II). 
Skin suture material, nylon 6-0 was removed 5 days after the operation in Group I. Prolene 4-0 was removed 3 weeks after the operation. The final result was obtained 3 months after the operation by estimation of both side scar width.
The results were as follows:
1. Scar widening was lesser, mean difference 0.58 mm, in intradermal buried interrupted suture using nylon 6-0 at deep dermofat layer, intradermal continuous running suture using Prolene 4-0 and skin tape for coaptation of the skin(Group II) (p 0.5).
2. Suture mark could be identified in intradermal buried interrupted suture and skin suture using nylon 6-0 (Group I) even though removal of suture material 5 days after the operation.
Based on our results, it is suggested that intradermal buried interrupted suture using nylon 6-0, subcuticular continuous suture with Prolene 4-0 and skin tape in the fusiform scar revision would be made to minimize scar widening and to get more satisfactory cosmetic results.