Surgical technique selection in veterinary medicine is frequently framed as a comparison between open and minimally invasive approaches, yet this framing can obscure the distinct ways procedures succeed or fail. This article proposes a comparative surgical decision architecture based on failure modes rather than technique labels. The framework examines how exposure, visualization, access, fixation or repair control, tissue burden, patient characteristics, lesion characteristics, and procedural resources interact to influence the suitability of open surgery, arthroscopy, laparoscopy, and image-guided intervention. The article synthesizes comparative veterinary evidence to distinguish established observations from proposed decision logic. The central contribution is a failure-mode matching approach in which the preferred technique is determined by the dominant anticipated limitation and the consequences of alternative failure pathways. This framework does not establish a universally superior surgical method. Instead, it provides a structured basis for clinical reasoning, identifies boundaries requiring validation, and highlights the need for prospective comparative studies incorporating technical, functional, safety, and patient-centered outcomes.
