Research Article Labor Induction with Intravaginal Misoprostol versus Spontaneous Labor: Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes Esra Ozbasli , 1 Melis Canturk , 2 Elif Ganime Aygun , 3 Selin Ozaltin , 1 and Mete Gungor 1 1 Acibadem Mehmet Ali Aydinlar University School of Medicine, Acibadem Maslak University Hospital, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Darüşşafaka, Büyükdere Cad. No: 40, 34457 Sarıyer-Istanbul, Turkey 2 Unye State Hospital, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kaladere, Yuceler, Kayalar Sk.No:3, 52300 Unye-Ordu, Turkey 3 Acibadem Atakent University Hospital, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Halkali Merkez, Turgut Ozal Blv. No: 16, Kucukcekmece- Istanbul, Turkey Correspondence should be addressed to Esra Ozbasli; esraizmit@gmail.com Received 26 October 2022; Revised 30 November 2022; Accepted 3 December 2022; Published 9 December 2022 Academic Editor: Renato T Souza Copyright © 2022 Esra Ozbasli et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Purpose. To compare the maternal and neonatal outcomes of pregnant women who had labor induction with intravaginal misoprostol or had spontaneous labor in our clinic. Material-Method. The records of 213 pregnant women, who were followed up in Acibadem Maslak University Hospital for vaginal delivery between June 2021 and December 2021, were retrospectively evaluated. The pregnant women, who gave birth, were divided into 3 groups as follows: spontaneous labor (SL), those induced by a single dose of misoprostol (SDM), and those induced by multiple doses of misoprostol (MDM). The groups were compared in terms of delivery type, the vaginal birth rate within 12 hours, need for intervention, duration of the second stage of labor, cesarean section ratio due to fetal distress, time from the last dose to delivery, and 1st and 5th minute APGAR scores. Results. Among the primiparous pregnant women, 84.7% of SL group, 65.2% of SDM group, and 37% MDM group delivered vaginally within 12 hours (p <0:05). The time from the last misoprostol dose to delivery was also statistically significantly shorter in pregnant women, who received a single dose of misoprostol (483 vs. 720 min, respectively). When the hospitalization time was evaluated, in the SDM group, the MDM group, and the SL group, it was found to be 611, 831, and 379 min, respectively. In multiparous pregnant women, the hospitalization time was 735 min in the SDM group, 494 min in the MDM group, and 261.5 min in the SL group (p <0:05). Other than the hospitalization time, when the aforementioned variables were studied in multiparous pregnant women, no statistically significant difference among groups was observed (p >0:05). Conclusion. Intravaginal misoprostol seems to be a promising medical agent for labor induction due to its high delivery rates within 12 hours and the absence of negative fetal outcomes, its ease of storage, and affordable cost. 1. Introduction Labor induction is the initiation of contractions by mechan- ical or pharmacological stimulation of the uterus in order to achieve vaginal delivery [1]. Induction of labor is performed to initiate uterine contractions and ensure the dilatation of the cervix. The need for labor induction has increased in recent years with the increase in prenatal follow-up opportu- nities. The decision in relation to induction of labor should be made in cases where pregnancy continuation is not ben- eficial, or pregnancy continuation may be harmful from a maternal or fetal point of view. Indications for induction of labor can be summarized as follows: premature rupture of membranes, chorioamnionitis, fetal death, hypertensive dis- eases of pregnancy (preeclampsia and eclampsia), diabetes, renal disease, chronic pulmonary disease, logistic factors (psychosocial indications and distance from the hospital), and fetal growth restriction [2]. The rate of birth induction in nulliparous women in the United States of America (USA) in 2018 was reported as 37.8% [3]. Hindawi BioMed Research International Volume 2022, Article ID 2826927, 9 pages https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/2826927