Historical research is incremental, it builds upon previous research and refines, rather than refutes previous research. Every once in a while you'll have a new paradigm that will result in new insights, but again, these are not "breakthroughs" in the way medical sciences know them.

But something very interesting are the digitization of the Sound Toll registers. They can/will/are used to reconstruct the bulk of trade in Northern Europe/the Baltic over a period of 350 years..

Digitization in general is going to herald a proverbial Renaissance of historical research.

Generations tend to attach their own experiences to historical events.

For example: a post-revisionist history of the beginning of the Cold War highlights a common misunderstanding between the USA and USSR at the eve of the Cold War, but an Orthodox (American) historian would argue that an expansionist Stalin caused a stern American backlash.

History is not at all as simple as dates and men. There will be new arguments emerging with the increasing volume of literature and every discovery has the possibility of revolutionising an old debate.

I think it's most significant in terms of historiographical viewpoints. Not necessarily in the last decade, but since the 1970s works by theorists like Hayden White have changed how we view the structure and validity of historical research.