Actually the Cambridge controversy sort of affected macroeconomic modeling. As explained in the article that is also linked in one of the comments, the aggregate production function, real business cycle, neoclassical general equilibrium models, and endogenous growth theories can be thought of as an retort to some of the criticism levied by the English side of the Cambridge controversy, even though the modern scholarship on these ideas often does not acknowledge this or in the words of Cohen & Harcourt (2003) they often " as if the controversies had never occurred and the Cambridge,England contributors had never existed."
Also, while Cohen & Harcourt argue that the Cambridge controversy simply fizzled out because English side simply forgot to intellectually procreate and died out I don't think thats perfectly accurate. The American side has put forward some good counter arguments (e.g. see Stiglitz 1974), and neoclassical modeling was influenced by the critique (even if primarily in a way that it tried to retort critique coming from the English side). In fact Solow-Swan model was indirectly influenced this controversy since as argued by Hagemann (2009) Solow-Swan model was reaction to Harrod-Domar model. Similarly, the above mentioned general equilibrium theory and (modern) endogenous growth theory (eg Paul Romer), can be viewed as retorts to some of the criticism of English side (even if unintentional/unacknowledged). I think this to some extent took the wind out of the English side's sails.