To map contemporary minimally invasive veterinary surgery across companion- and large-animal practice and examine how procedural innovation, patient selection, perioperative outcomes, complications, operator training, and evidence maturity constrain clinical interpretation. Peer-reviewed veterinary literature published from 2017 through 2025 was evaluated using a PRISMA-ScR-compatible approach. Evidence was charted by species, surgical specialty, procedural configuration, comparator structure, patient-selection features, perioperative outcomes, complications or conversion, training requirements, and degree of clinical evidential maturity. Laparoscopic, thoracoscopic, arthroscopic, endoscopic, image-guided, hybrid, and emerging minimally invasive procedures were retained as analytically distinct categories where their access routes, decision requirements, or failure modes differed. Selection-flow quantities that were not reproducibly available were not reconstructed. The mapped literature showed marked heterogeneity in procedure type and evidential maturity. Comparative clinical cohorts coexist with single-center case series, rare-indication reports, experimental instrumentation studies, and simulation-based training research. Companion-animal evidence spans multiple specialties, whereas large-animal evidence includes clinically substantive equine arthroscopy and laparoscopy and production-animal applications. Reported perioperative advantages cannot be separated consistently from patient selection, anesthetic management, operator experience, or procedure-specific factors. Training studies demonstrate acquisition of technical skills but provide more limited evidence regarding transfer to independent clinical performance. Veterinary minimally invasive surgery is best interpreted as a heterogeneous procedural field rather than a single intervention class. A proposed evidence-maturity and translation architecture separates technical feasibility, comparative clinical evidence, patient-selection boundaries, perioperative management, operator capability, and external transferability. Major limitations include uneven comparative evidence, small clinical series, rare-event uncertainty, and incomplete validation across species, procedures, and settings.
