Introduction:
Labor induction (IOL) is a prevalent procedure that plays a significant role in reducing maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality. One of the essential aspects of this process is the standardization of IOL procedures, which aids in the systematic analysis of outcomes. Currently, the most widely used system for this purpose is the Nippita classification (NC). However, there is a newly proposed system, the Grenoble classification (GC) that is aimed at an innovative standardization system.

Aim of the research:
The main objective of this study is to draw a comprehensive comparison between the categorization of IOL procedures under the existing NC and the newly proposed GC system.

Material and methods:
Our study was carried out in a third-level center in Poland, where we observed a sample of 819 patients who underwent IOL. We considered common indications for IOL, including post-term pregnancy, premature rupture of membranes, and gestational diabetes.

Results:
Upon comparing the NC and GC, we found significant differences in the distribution of patients among various categories. The most commonly observed categories were N3 and G5 in NC and GC, respectively (33.3% and 51.64%). Additionally, differences were identified in the proportion of patients who underwent cesarean section across homogeneous categories in both systems.

Conclusions:
The insights derived from this study suggest that the GC may provide a more suitable framework for standardizing IOL procedures as it accounts for additional obstetric criteria. Implementing a universal classification system for IOL could enhance outcome monitoring capabilities and foster the development of perinatal care worldwide.