Objective: To retrospectively explore the effects of modified dosage of calcium gluconate (CG) on the patients with hydrofluoric acid burns not in hands or feet. Methods: One hundred and sixty patients with hydrofluoric acid burns not in hands or feet were hospitalized in our burn ward from January 2004 to December 2017. Based on the dosage of CG at different admission time, 76 patients hospitalized from January 2004 to December 2012 were included in traditional group, and 84 patients hospitalized from January 2013 to December 2017 were included in modified group. For patients in the two groups, subcutaneous injection of CG solution at one time was immediately conducted on admission in topical treatment. In traditional group, the injection was CG solution with mass concentration of 100 g/L. For wounds of superficial partial-thickness and above degree, CG solution was prescribed at the dosage of 50 mg/cm². Wounds of superficial-thickness or mass fraction of hydrofluoric acid less than 20.0% did not receive injection. In modified group, the mass concentration of CG solution for injection was diluted with normal saline to 25 g/L. For wounds of deep partial-thickness and above degree, CG solution was prescribed at the dosage of (50×mass fraction of hydrofluoric acid) mg/cm². For wounds of superficial partial-thickness, CG solution was prescribed at the dosage of (25×mass fraction of hydrofluoric acid) mg/cm². For wounds of superficial-thickness, CG solution was prescribed at the dosage of 2.5 mg/cm². For systemic treatment, the injection velocity of CG solution via venous access was adjusted according to the level of serum calcium namely total serum calcium of patients in traditional group. In modified group, serum ionized calcium was additionally detected through automatic blood gas analyzer by the bed to regulate the injection velocity of CG via venous access. The incidence rate of hypercalcemia and mortality of patients after treatment in the two groups, and the situation about treatment of survivors in the two groups were analyzed. Data were processed with chi-square test, Fisher′s exact probability test, t test, and Mann-Whitney U test. Results: (1) After treatment, 9 patients (11.8%) had hypercalcemia, while the other 67 patients (88.2%) did not have hypercalcemia in traditional group. Two patients (2.4%) had hypercalcemia, while the other 82 patients (97.6%) did not have hypercalcemia in modified group. The incidence rate of hypercalcemia of patients in traditional group was significantly higher than that in modified group (χ²=5.579, P=0.02). (2) There were two deaths (2.6%) and 74 survivors (97.4%) in traditional group, while there were two deaths (2.4%) and 82 survivors (97.6%) in modified group. The mortalities of patients in the two groups were close (P>0.05). (3) The ratios of eschar excision and skin grafting and hyperplastic scar formation, wound healing time, and ratio of esophageal scar stenosis of survivors in the two groups were close (χ²=0.002, 0.054, Z=0.66, P>0.05). Conclusions Hydrofluoric acid is highly dangerous. The early management of patients with hydrofluoric acid burns emphasizing specialized dosage of CG for treatment can be helpful to reduce incidence of complications and improve the safety of treatment.