The word is tracheostomy.
The indication here would have been to facilitate long term ventilation and subsequent weaning (and to reduce the incidence of sub-glottic stenosis). These things are easier / better tolerated with a tracheostomy rather than an endotracheal tube (which he would have had initially).
There may well be implications for his voice, but that would be even more likely had he not had a tracheostomy and just had an endotracheal tube, as that would have involved a tube sitting between his vocal cords for the entire time he was ventilated. The tracheostomy enters the trachea below the cords.
I heard a bit of him bigging-up the hospital in Austria :roll:. He would have faired just as well in almost any NHS ITU and our service is free at the point of need.